Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer

On 5/17/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2025 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2025 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/17/25 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2025 9:27 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 17/05/2025 09:55, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-16 14:47:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/16/2025 4:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-15 00:36:21 +0000, Mike Terry said:
>

On 14/05/2025 22:31, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully
simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)

>
*NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC*
<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
>

That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>

>
If that was actually true then you could provide an
alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.
>
I keep challenging you to provide this alternative
meaning and you dodge because you know that you are
lying about there being any alternative meaning
FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE.

>
No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the
words (which appear to be incomplete).
>
The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you didn't
notice.  Here's the full quotation from a previous article:
>

<Sipser approved abstract>
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
paper):
>
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.
</Sipser approved abstract>

>
**If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you claim,
**then** H can correctly report the halting status of D. (That's a
paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the full meaning; the full
**quotation is above.)
>
To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in
the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting
status of D.
>
I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that.  The problem is
that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible.
>
If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its four
vertices would be 90 degrees.  That doesn't actually mean that
there exists an equilateral triangle with four 90-degree vertices,
and in fact no such triangle exists.  Similarly, *if* a general
halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things we could say
about it -- but no general halt decider can exist.
>
I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here.  I invite any
actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to criticize
what I've written.

>
I doubt that Sipser would be using your interpretation, relying on a false premise as a clever kind of logical loop-hole to basically fob someone off.

>
The details of H are not known to Sipser, so he can't know whether a
premise is false. It is possible that some simulating partial decider
correctly simulates a part of the behaviour of some D and correctly
determines that the unsimulated part of the behaviour never halts;
for example, if the unsimulated part is a trivial eternal loop. That
one premise is false about HHH with DDD is a part of what was asked.

>
Mike explains all of the details of exactly how a
correct Simulating Halt Decider is derived from
the exact meaning of the words that professor Sipser
agreed to IN THE PART THAT YOU IGNORED

>
No, he does not. He does not even believe that it is possible to derive
a correct Simulating Halt Decider form the exact meaning of any words.
>

>
That's correct.
>
We could build a correct /partial/ SHD though, which I explained. The idea behind an PSHD is ok, and a class of HP inputs could be correctly decided with a PSHD.  Obviously a PSHD H could not decide its corresponding H^ input, as the Linz HP proof implies.  Since PO's HHH / does/ decide its corresponding DD (incorrectly), it is not a PSHD, since PSHDs are not allowed to decide incorrectly.  [A correctly coded PSHD HHH would never halt when given its (HHH^,HHH^) input.
>
PO's problem is that he misunderstands the entire context of Sipser's words.  Sipser's words concern how a PSHD H could decide some FIXED INPUT D it has been given.

>
Mike's reviews of my work are at least ten-fold better
than the next best reviewer. Mike is one of the few
people here that really wants an honest dialogue. He
carefully examined my code and has a nearly perfect
understanding.

>
And he still points out how you are wrong.
>

>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
Most everyone else only seems to care about rebuttal
at the expense of truth. Keith and Ben also seem to
care about truth.

>
No, rebuttal for the SAKE of truth.
>

>
<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

>
Right, ans since your HHH and DDD are not programs

>
I will not tolerate changing the subject you damned liar!
>

 *H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*

No it doesn't, not unless H never aborts its input.
If H does abort its input, and returns 0, then its simulated input (which means it fully correctly simulated input) will see DDD call the actual HHH that will abort and return 0 and thus halt.

 HHH, everything that HHH calls and DDD
*would never stop running unless* HHH aborts its DDD.
 

but only if HHH never aborts its input.
The problem is that to even make that claim, you need to first do the implied fixing of HHH and DDD to be actual programs, and thus HHH has some fixed defined algorithm which will either be aborting of this input or not, and DDD to be completed with its copy of that program HHH (its ok for its copy to be in the same memory space, that just fixes the values of those memory locations to be what they are to do that).
If HHH was chosen to be the non-aborting version, then of course it would have been correct to have aborted, but it chose not to, so fails. Just because something would be correct to have done it doesnt't mean it does it. After all, there is no "Do the Right Thing" instruction.
On the other hand, if HHH was chosed to be the aborting version, then the DDD will be built on that same version, and the correct simulation of this input, which is what the specification looks at, will reach the final state as DDD will call that HHH (that aborts, since that IS the code there) which will simulate for awhile, then abort its simulation and return 0 to DDD which will halt.
That means that this HHH was incorrect to abort its simulation, because its programmer didn't know what he was doing. After all, agian, there is not "Do the right thing" instruction, or any property that says that the code we right will always do the right thing. So, we just have an HHH that doesn't meet the requirements to be promised that it will get the right answer, so no surprize when it doesn't.
Your insistance that the wrong answer must be right because you use the wrong definitions, and even start with a category error that had to be fixed to even talk about what you think you are doing just shows your utter stupidity.