XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
On 10/17/2022 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/16/22 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2022 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/16/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2022 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/16/22 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2022 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/16/22 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2022 10:16 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.
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
// Richard is too dumb to see this
If (H never stops D)
D keeps repeating
But that isn't the question, and H DOES stop, so it doesn't matter. >>>>>>>
It is the question that H is correctly answering and you are just
too dumb to see this.
So you admit you aren't doing the Halting Problem Because that
isn't the question of the Halting Problem.
As Professor Sipser agrees the halt status of D is correctly
determined by the behavior of D simulated by H, and this D never
halts even if it does stop running because its simulation was aborted. >>>>
No, he said that *IF* H did a correct simulation, and was able to
*CORRECTLY* determine that the simulation would not stop,
unless aborted // you can't skip this
Right, and the correct simulation of THIS input will reach a final state
if not aborted.
I really wish that you would quit dishonestly changing the words. We are
not talking about H reaching its final state.
Every correct simulation of 1 to ∞ steps of D by any H will never reach
the final state of D. The problem may also be that you can't understand
the proof of this on page 3.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)