Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake

On 5/16/25 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 3:06 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.mei.2025 om 07:29 schreef olcott:

*Not at all. I am following these exact words*
<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
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
Shows exactly how to implement those words to implement
a correct Simulating Termination Analyzer. Mike provides
a complete example of how this works.
>
>

>
>
Sipser agreed to a vacuous statement, because the condition 'correctly simulates' was not met.

>
And by this you mean that when the spec requires
a partial simulation
>
*until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
>
You "interpret" this to mean that it must
infinitely simulate non-terminating inputs.

>
Which means, as I explained else, if H, after doing a partial simulation, can determine that a COMPLETE simulation of this exact input would be non-halting, it can abort.
>

 Not quite. One key detail is missing.
*H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
 Is referring to what the behavior of D would be
(in the hypothetical case) where this very same
H never aborted.

Nope, since D must stay D, and D must be a fully encoded program and thus doesn't change when you make the hypothetical H.
Thus you need to look at the hypothetical H looking at the D built from the actual H, not the hypothetical H.
This is why you are mistakenly revealed that you D isn't a program, becuae you logic doesn't work when D is a program, and thus must contain all it code.
But, if D isn't a program, and its representation doesn't contain all of its algorthm, you can't use this statement that is based on that specifiecation.

 When you have any other process simulating D
then you are not referring to *its simulated D*

But D was built to call the original H, IF IT IS A PROGRAM.
Thus both H see the D that calls the original H.
Making D not a progrma, just invalidates your ability to use any of this, as a non-program can not be simulated past the point it references code it doesn't contain.

 Mike already went through all of the details
of how this works perfectly well on conventional
inputs such as infinite loops.

Right, because they were PROGRANS, and not your non-leaf functions that change what program the look like.
The error that DISQUALIFIES your logic from using this statement, because you have a category error in it.

 *Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E