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

On 5/16/25 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
*Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>
Mike perfectly explains all of this with a concrete
example. In this case H determines that its infinite
loop input would never stop running unless aborted
so it aborts it and correctly rejects it.
>
H is not being asked what is the behavior of this
infinite loop after H aborts it. It is being asked
what its behavior would be if H never aborted it.
>
HHH is not being asked what is the behavior of
DDD after HHH aborts it. It is being asked
what its behavior would be if HHH never aborted it.
>
>

>
What makes you think I haven't.
>

>
You haven't what?

 Read all the message.
 

>

And, since DDD needs to be a PROGRAM to do any of this, as non-leaf functions can't be correctly emulated, that DDD DOES include the code of the HHH it was built for, which is the HHH that aborts and returns 0.
>

>
It is the job of HHH to determine whether or not its
input *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED*

 No, its job is to determine if the program that the input represents will halt.