On 4/26/2025 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/26/2025 3:23 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 14:46:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/26/2025 1:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
On 4/26/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.apr.2025 om 23:21 schreef olcott:
On 4/25/2025 8:56 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:03:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
The program EE(){ HHH(EE); } also halts and cannot be simulated by
HHH.
>
HHH cannot possibly do this without violating the rules of the x86
language.
HHH already violates the rules of the x86 language by prematurely
aborting the halting program.
>
Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules of the x86 language yet no
one can point out which rules are violated
>
It has been pointed out many times. It is against the rules of the x86
language to abort a halting function.
>
You remains stupidly wrong about this because you refuse to show what
step of DD is not emulated by HHH according to the finite string
transformation rules specified by the x86 language.
All instructions after the abort are not emulated.
>
Still stupidly wrong.
*The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*
<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>
But not to what you think he agreed to:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase <
franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:56:52 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> On 3/5/2023 8:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:30:38 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I needed Sipser for people [bla]
> >> > >
> >> > Does Sipser support your view/claim that you have refuted the halting theorem?
> >> >
> >> > Does he write/teach that the halting theorem is invalid?
> >> >
> >> > Tell us, oh genius!
> >> >
> >> Professor Sipser only agreed that [...]
> >
> > So the answer is no. Noted.
> >
> >> Because he has >250 students he did not have time to examine anything
> >> else. [...]
> >
> > Oh, a CS professor does not have the time to check a refutation of the
> > halting theorem. *lol*
> I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
> substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
> permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.
>
On 8/23/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> joes <
noreply@example.org> writes:
>
>> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
>>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation
>>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
>>
>> If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
>
> We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at
> the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were
> "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark".
>
> Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called
> work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he
> agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he
> (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases,
> i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine
> it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such
> cases.
>
> I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without
> making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser
> uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in
> enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the
> "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made
> of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But,
> personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that,
> and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs. That's
> the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of
> being disingenuous.
On 8/23/2024 9:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case: what
> Sipser understood he was agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as
> meaning. Sipser would not agree that the conclusion applies in PO's
> HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts.
DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)