XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, sci.logic

On 10/23/2022 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:

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 <[email protected]> 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*

I emailed Ben a copy of this and invited him to make a rebuttal.
Since he responded to my first email I know that it reached him.

I am sure that he knows there is no correct rebuttal and that is his
reason for not responding.


--
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)