Re: Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof

On 9/15/2024 11:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 9/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:

>
Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
D(D) correctly reports its own halt status
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>

 Nope, just proves you are a stupid ignorant liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.
 First, you title is incorrect, as it isn't "D" that needs to report its halt status, but the "H" that "D" Calls.
 Remember, in the problem H is, and only is, the machine that H is, and D is, and only is, the machine that D is, as the code in the problem presents.
  Remember, you have been tole (but ignore) that the phrase:
 until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted
 Means that a CORRECT UNABORTED SIMULATION of *THIS* D would not stop,

unless aborted, Therefore giving H is criterion measure.
<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

but *THIS* D calls *THIS* H, which you admit *WILL* decide to abort (and thus its simulation is not the "correct simulation" we are to look at).
 Since THIS H does return to its caller, since it DOES abort, this means that the correct simulation of this D will halt, and thus this H never got the "authorization" to abort, but did so anyway and introduced its error into the system.
 Note, when you say:
 When H correctly simulates D it finds that D remains stuck in recursive simulation
Line 13: main() invokes D(D)
Line 06: Invoked D calls H that simulates D(D)
Line 06: Simulated D calls simulated H that simulates D(D) (repeats until aborted)
 Simulation Invariant: D simulated by H never reaches Line 07 or Line 08.
 We note that the first line is incorrect, as H DOESN'T correctly simulate D, as it DOES abort, and that the "repeats until aborted" talks about a condition that DOES happen, so if we look at the actual CORRECT simulation of D, we see that main invokes D(D) that calls H(D,D) that simulates its copy of D(D) for some time an then aborts that simulation and returns to D which returns to main, and thus halts.
 Thus, your "Simulation Invariant" is just a LIE.
 Of course, that is because you stupidly keep on confusing the behavior of D (simulated by H) with the behavior of the simulation of D by H.
 You seem to do this because you, in your ignorance, can't keep track of the difference between the TRUTH of the behavior of *THIS* D (the D that calls the H that simulates it for a while and then aborts and returns) with the knowledge that H gets by its PARTIAL simulation of its input D, and the behavior of a totally different program D (with the same code in the C functions D, but calling a different function H, with different behavior).
 These errors have been pointed out to you MANY times, and your repeating the error either says you are mentally incapable of learning facts, or you are just so brainwashed by yourself with your lies that you just refuse to accept the facts and thus make your self just a pathetic ignorant pathologically lying idiot.
  Notd, at your end, you confuse the question, as you fill in the D / D line with "Accept" even though this is supposed to be the mapping function that H is computing, and BY YOUR ADMISSION, H REJECTED the input.
 Thus, you prove with that final comment that you just don't understand what you are talking about and are nothing but a LYING IDIOT.
 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer