On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 5:58:35 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> writes:
Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct:
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this >>>>> paper.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>>> presented to him.
*The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
And what does he say about:
Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H
"would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P)
returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
computation.
Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
Exactly. Since you are claiming that the answer to "Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?" is "No" and the answer to "Does this input halt?" is "Yes", it's clear you are making a mistake somewhere.
On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 5:58:35 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> writes:
Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct:
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this >>>>> paper.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>>> presented to him.
*The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
And what does he say about:
Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H
"would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P)
returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
computation.
Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
Exactly. Since you are claiming that the answer to "Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?" is "No" and the answer to "Does this input halt?" is "Yes", it's clear you are making a mistake somewhere.
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What
Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's >>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my >>>>> copy to check it out.
No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two
recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. >>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However, H(P,P) >>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem
-- the
one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly
determine this silly criterion (in this one case) so H is a POOH decider
(again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
is also undecidable in general).
The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does it, and
since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D will halt.
Right, but that's not the criterion that PO is using, is it? I don't
get what the problem is. Ever since the "line 15 commented out"
debacle, PO has been pulling the same trick: "D(D) only halts
because..." was one way he used to put it before finding a more tricky wording. For years, the project has simply been to find words he can
dupe people with.
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What
Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's >>>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't
find my
copy to check it out.
No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two
recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. >>>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this >>>>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However,
H(P,P)
== 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem
Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.
-- the
one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but D(D)
would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly
determine this silly criterion (in this one case) so H is a POOH decider
Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.
(again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
is also undecidable in general).
I am only showing that a simulating halt decider defeats all of the conventional halting problem proofs. I am not showing that is solves the halting problem.
The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does it, and
since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D will halt.
Right, but that's not the criterion that PO is using, is it? I don't
get what the problem is. Ever since the "line 15 commented out"
debacle, PO has been pulling the same trick: "D(D) only halts
because..." was one way he used to put it before finding a more tricky
wording. For years, the project has simply been to find words he can
dupe people with.
Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.
This would mean that a simulating halt decider does apply to the actual halting problem proofs.
On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>> looks correct:
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced
in this
paper.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>>>>> presented to him.
*The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>>>>>>
And what does he say about:
Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get >>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant.
H(P,P)
returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
computation.
Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final
state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that
H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.
Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY
predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
(in this one case)...
On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
paragraph looks correct:
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>>> in this
paper.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>> paper
presented to him.
*The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>>>>>>>
And what does he say about:
Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to >>>>>> get
something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant.
H(P,P)
returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
computation.
Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final
state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given
that H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.
Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY
predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
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.
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
(in this one case)...
On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
paragraph looks correct:
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>>>> in this
paper.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>>> paper
presented to him.
*The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael
Sipser*
And what does he say about:
Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless"
to get
something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>>>> H(P,P)
returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
computation.
Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final
state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given
that H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.
Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY
predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
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.
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
(in this one case)...
Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and correctly determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not halt.
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What
Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's >>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my >>>>> copy to check it out.
No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two
recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. >>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However, H(P,P) >>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem -- the
one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but
*D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly* *determine this silly criterion (in this one case)* so H is a POOH decider (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
is also undecidable in general).
On 10/17/2022 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:No his agreement is stronger than that, you are not paying close enough attention or you don't care about the truth.
On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
paragraph looks correct:
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider
referenced in this
paper.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>>>> paper
presented to him.
*The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael >>>>>>>>>> Sipser*
And what does he say about:
Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>>>>
If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect >>>>>>>>> simulationYou need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" >>>>>>>> to get
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>
something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>>>>> H(P,P)
returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>>> computation.
Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not
aborted?
This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a
final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation,
given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.
Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY
predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
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.
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
(in this one case)...
Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and
correctly determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not
halt.
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What
Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's >>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my >>>>> copy to check it out.
No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two
recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. >>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However, H(P,P) >>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem -- the
one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but
*D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly* *determine this silly criterion* (*in this one case*) so H is a POOH decider (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
is also undecidable in general).
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What
Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's >>>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't
find my
copy to check it out.
No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two
recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. >>>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this >>>>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However,
H(P,P)
== 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem -- the
one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but
*D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly*
*determine this silly criterion* (*in this one case*) so H is a POOH
decider
(again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
is also undecidable in general).
*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.
On 10/17/22 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/17/2022 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:No his agreement is stronger than that, you are not paying close
On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
paragraph looks correct:
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider
referenced in this
paper.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review >>>>>>>>>>> this paper
presented to him.
*The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael >>>>>>>>>>> Sipser*
And what does he say about:
Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>>>>>
If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect >>>>>>>>>> simulationYou need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" >>>>>>>>> to get
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>>
something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation.
Whatever H
"would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is
irrelevant. H(P,P)
returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>>>> computation.
Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not
aborted?
This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>>>>>
Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a
final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, >>>>>>> given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>>>> 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.
Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and
CORRECTLY predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
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.
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
(in this one case)...
Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and
correctly determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not
halt.
enough attention or you don't care about the truth.
No, he agreed to the exact words you gave to him, and you need to
interpret according to what HE defines the words to be.
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What
Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's >>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my >>>>> copy to check it out.
No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two
recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. >>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However, H(P,P) >>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem -- the
one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly
determine this silly criterion (in this one case) so H is a POOH decider (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
is also undecidable in general).
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 86:52:58 |
Calls: | 7,778 |
Files: | 12,911 |
Messages: | 5,750,175 |