Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer

On 5/17/2025 6:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2025 19:35:12 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 5/17/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2025 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/17/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2025 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2025 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/17/25 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2025 9:27 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 17/05/2025 09:55, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-16 14:47:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/16/2025 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-15 00:36:21 +0000, Mike Terry said:
>

On 14/05/2025 22:31, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when
fully simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)

>
*NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
10/13/2022>
      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates
      its input D until H correctly determines that
      its
simulated D
      would never stop running unless aborted then
>

That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>
>

If that was actually true then you could provide an
alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.
>
I keep challenging you to provide this alternative meaning
and you dodge because you know that you are lying about
there being any alternative meaning FOR THE EXACT WORDS
LISTED ABOVE.

>
No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct
interpretation of the words (which appear to be incomplete).
>
The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you
didn't notice.  Here's the full quotation from a previous
article:
>

<Sipser approved abstract>
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to
anything else in this paper):
>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
non-halting sequence of configurations.
</Sipser approved abstract>

>
**If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you
claim, **then** H can correctly report the halting status of
D. (That's a paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the
full meaning;
the full **quotation is above.)
>
To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in
the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the
halting status of D.
>
I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that.  The
problem is that it's a conditional statement whose premise
is impossible.
>
If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its
four vertices would be 90 degrees.  That doesn't actually
mean that there exists an equilateral triangle with four
90-degree vertices,
and in fact no such triangle exists.  Similarly, *if* a
general halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things
we could say about it -- but no general halt decider can
exist.
>
I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here.  I invite
any actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to
criticize what I've written.

>
I doubt that Sipser would be using your interpretation,
relying on a false premise as a clever kind of logical loop-
hole to basically fob someone off.

>
The details of H are not known to Sipser, so he can't know
whether a premise is false. It is possible that some
simulating partial decider correctly simulates a part of the
behaviour of some D and correctly determines that the
unsimulated part of the behaviour never halts;
for example, if the unsimulated part is a trivial eternal
loop. That one premise is false about HHH with DDD is a part
of what was asked.

>
Mike explains all of the details of exactly how a correct
Simulating Halt Decider is derived from the exact meaning of
the words that professor Sipser agreed to IN THE PART THAT YOU
IGNORED

>
No, he does not. He does not even believe that it is possible to
derive a correct Simulating Halt Decider form the exact meaning
of any words.
>
>

That's correct.
>
We could build a correct /partial/ SHD though, which I explained.
The idea behind an PSHD is ok, and a class of HP inputs could be
correctly decided with a PSHD.  Obviously a PSHD H could not
decide its corresponding H^ input, as the Linz HP proof implies.
Since PO's HHH / does/ decide its corresponding DD (incorrectly),
it is not a PSHD, since PSHDs are not allowed to decide
incorrectly.  [A correctly coded PSHD HHH would never halt when
given its (HHH^,HHH^) input.
>
PO's problem is that he misunderstands the entire context of
Sipser's words.  Sipser's words concern how a PSHD H could decide
some FIXED INPUT D it has been given.

>
Mike's reviews of my work are at least ten-fold better than the
next best reviewer. Mike is one of the few people here that really
wants an honest dialogue. He carefully examined my code and has a
nearly perfect understanding.

>
And he still points out how you are wrong.
>
>

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
Most everyone else only seems to care about rebuttal at the
expense of truth. Keith and Ben also seem to care about truth.

>
No, rebuttal for the SAKE of truth.
>
>

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
10/13/2022>
      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
      would never stop running unless aborted then

>
Right, ans since your HHH and DDD are not programs

>
I will not tolerate changing the subject you damned liar!
>
>

*H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*

>
No it doesn't, not unless H never aborts its input.
>
If H does abort its input, and returns 0, then its simulated input
(which means it fully correctly simulated input) will see DDD call the
actual HHH that will abort and return 0 and thus halt.
>
>

HHH, everything that HHH calls and DDD *would never stop running
unless* HHH aborts its DDD.
>
>

but only if HHH never aborts its input.
>
>

That <is> its correct criterion measure and Mike uses this same
criterion measure on his infinite loop example.

>
But it only does a correct simulation if it doesn't abort its
simulation.
>
PERIOD.

 No, it only needs to report a correct halting result *as if* the
simulation was run to completion: whether we abort, or continue until we
run out of stack space makes no difference: we are detecting INFINITE
recursion which can be viewed as non-halting.
 /Flibble

Thanks for your support. I was shocked how quickly
you picked this stuff up. Much quicker than me.
Like me you don't have a perfect understanding
of every nuance of the terminology.
Unlike most everyone else you have a much deeper
understanding of the key gist of these ideas.
Most everyone else has no actual understanding.
They can only parrot what textbooks say.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer