<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.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:16:48 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> 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 have been told multiple times now that you are not doing a correct simulation of D
On 10/16/2022 11:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:Like I said my reasoning on page 3 only applies to people having
<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.
sufficient technical competence (apparently not you).
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.
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.
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 86:50:00 |
Calls: | 7,778 |
Files: | 12,911 |
Messages: | 5,750,175 |