XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
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:
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."
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?
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
Ben has agreed that Sipser_H does correctly compute the halt status of
Sipser_D according to this criteria:
*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.
*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
(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?
*This is the criteria that I am using*
*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.
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 knows these things much deeper than learned-by-rote
from a textbook.
--
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)