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

On 5/17/25 7:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2025 19:35:12 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 5/17/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/17/2025 3:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>
>

That <is> its correct criterion measure and Mike uses this same
criterion measure on his infinite loop example.

>
But it only does a correct simulation if it doesn't abort its
simulation.
>
PERIOD.

 No, it only needs to report a correct halting result *as if* the
simulation was run to completion: whether we abort, or continue until we
run out of stack space makes no difference: we are detecting INFINITE
recursion which can be viewed as non-halting.
 /Flibble

Right, but the input doesn't change (since it needs to be a program with all its code) and thus the hypothetical non-aborting HHH still gets the DDD calling the aborting HHH, and that can be simulated to the end, and thus no infinite recursion.
The case you are talking about results from the type error of not using an actual program, which just makes it illegal as an input.