Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #86875

Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

From Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Newsgroups comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider
Message-ID <20221012185239.0000114c@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink)
References <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <20221012182459.00000cb9@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <ti6u2o$gu5$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Organization Jupiter Mining Corporation
Date 2022-10-12 18:52 +0100

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 12:38:31 -0500
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:

> On 10/12/2022 12:24 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:08:20 -0500
> > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> 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*  
> > 
> > Whilst the paragraph you sent to Sipser is correct the crucial
> > detail that you are glossing over is that you do NOT perform a
> > correct simulation for all inputs:
> >   
> 
> Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
> (a) x86utm operating system
> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within
> Halt7.c https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
> 
> Anyone with sufficient software engineering skill can easily verify
> that Sipser_D is correctly simulated by Sipser_H and that Sipser_D
> remains stuck in infinitely recursive simulation unless and until
> Sipser_H aborts its correct simulation of Sipser_D.

You chose to not fully address my reply by snipping the important part
so I will give you another chance:

Whilst the paragraph you sent to Sipser is correct the crucial detail
that you are glossing over is that you do NOT perform a correct
simulation for all inputs:

void Px(void (*x)())
{
	(void) H(x, x);
	return;
}

The correct simulation of Px above is to simulate Px halting.

Sipser confirms that the Flibble Signaling Halt Decider (TM) is a
solution however it does not confirm that the Olcott Simulation
Detector is a valid halt decider.

/Flibble

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 10:08 -0500
  Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 11:48 -0500
  Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 12:04 -0500
  Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 18:24 +0100
    Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 12:38 -0500
      Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 18:52 +0100
        Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 13:04 -0500
          Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 19:07 +0100
            Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 13:25 -0500
              Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 19:30 +0100
                Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 14:17 -0500
                Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 20:26 +0100
                Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 14:32 -0500
                Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 20:50 +0100
  Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (Ben's support) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-20 22:17 -0500
  Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 15:03 -0500
    Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-10-22 05:19 -0700
      Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria [Paul N Lies] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 14:20 -0500
      Paul N is a liar or does not bother to pay attention olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 17:10 -0500

csiph-web