XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
On 10/16/22 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2022 11:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
<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>
to this paper:
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on
page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the
technical details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness
of page 3.
The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the
C calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.
Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the
Peter Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the
embedded copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly
construed as specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.
You logic is incorrect as heen pointed out many times.
Like I said my reasoning on page 3 only applies to people having
sufficient technical competence (apparently not you).
WHich is a false claim.
There is nothing in the arguement that actually requires that.
The fact that you mention it almost implies that you don't really have
the expertise to understand what you are talking about.
Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
[000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
[000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
[000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
We can see that the first seven instructions of Sipser_D simulated by Sipser_H precisely match the first seven instructions of the x86
source-code of Sipser_D. This conclusively proves that these
instructions were simulated correctly.
Right, so it is a correct PARTIAL simulation.
Anyone sufficiently technically competent in the x86 programming
language will agree that the above execution trace of Sipser_D simulated
by Sipser_H shows that Sipser_D will never stop running unless Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
Not in the sense required by the problem.
Since the Sipser_H being called WILL abort it simulation of the next
level of procesing of simulating another copy of Sipser_D, and return 0,
it is clear that the current simulating Sipser_H doesn't NEED to abort
the simulation to keep if from being non-halting, it only needs to abort
is as that is the code it contains.
By your logic EVERY loop is non-halting, because it only stops because
it decides to stop.
You are just showing your total lack of understanding of the topic.
The fact that you only "rebuttal" is to just repeat your falsehood and
claim that I "obviously" don't understand what you are saying, is
showing that what you are saying doesn't actually have a factual basis
to work on.
Factual statements generally can be reduced to simpler more basic terms
until you reach things so elementary they are of the form that are
generally accepted as true by the wide audience.
FALSEHOOD resist this treatment, as breaking them down to simpler terms
just reveals the falsehood more directly.
You inability to reduce your arguement a level says that it isn't based
on real truth, but lies. (Or at least you don't understand the truth
behind it, but since it is shown wrong, that isn't the case).
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)