Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 5/14/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 4:23 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 3:50 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-12 18:17:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
by Michael Sipser (Author)
4.4 out of 5 stars    568 rating
>
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation- Michael- Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>
int DD()
  {
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
  }
>
DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
that this criteria has been met:
>
<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

>
This specifies two requirements:
1. H correctly simulates that part of the behaviour of D that starts
from the start of the execution and does not end before the second
requirement is satisfied.
2. H correctly determines that unsimulated part of the behaviour is
infinitely long.
>
The second reuirement is not satisfied when HHH analyses the above
DD.
>

>
In other words you believe that DD will halt
on its own without ever being aborted by HHH.
That is counter-factual.
>
_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
...
>
HHH determines that DD correctly simulated by
HHH keeps calling HHH(DD) until HHH aborts this
simulation and rejects DD.
>

>
But that wasn't the criteria.
>
It was DD correctly simulated PERIOD.
>

>
THERE IS NO PERIOD.
THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS.

>
Simulation is not a requirement,

>
Yes it is a requirement of the above spec.

>
That Sipser did not agree to:
>

>
I simply state the actual facts:
*THESE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING*
>
<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>
>
>

 False:
        If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
      input D until H correctly determines that UTM(D)
      would never stop running unless aborted then
  Which is what anyone familiar with the halting problem would think, as that is what is compatible with the requirements:
 

Any stupid person that does not pay attention might think that.
*until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
UTM(D) is not "its simulated D"
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer