Ordinary code analysis proves that H(D,D)==0 according to its criterion.
I have a friend with a masters degree in computer science that agreed to
this after a 75 minute phone discussion carefully analyzing the first
three pages of my paper. He also immediately agreed with the Sipser
approved criterion with no discussion needed.
Original message: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/YmACFEiAoNk/m/wujVvKPvAAAJ
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:
If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What
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?
<Sipser Approved Verbatim 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 Verbatim Abstract>
*to this paper: Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
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)
This is the criterion that Ben erased from his reply:
On 10/17/2022 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
*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.
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.
*It is implausible that professor Sipser could be duped*
*into approving an abstract to a paper with this title*
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 15:24:37 |
Calls: | 7,831 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,770,101 |