Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #58398 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-10-12 10:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-10-30 11:43 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
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 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-12 17:54 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-12 17:46 +0100
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 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 16:07 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 23:58 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 06:51 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 09:43 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 18:33 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 17:47 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 19:04 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 20:52 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [Ben agrees] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 20:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:04 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-18 02:36 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 19:56 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-18 03:01 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:10 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-18 03:24 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:27 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 21:33 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 20:54 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 20:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 21:26 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:35 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 21:46 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:57 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:03 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 21:14 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:23 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-10-17 21:34 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:41 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 21:48 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:56 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 22:09 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 22:27 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 22:05 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 21:19 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 22:32 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-10-17 21:36 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-10-18 05:55 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 09:58 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-10-17 04:59 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 09:20 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 09:31 -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 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 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 15:07 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 12:32 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 15:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 15:23 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 17:39 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 17:17 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 11:46 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 17:47 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:26 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:13 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:06 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 18:22 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 20:59 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 20:13 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 21:56 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 20:19 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 03:44 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo !!! olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 21:07 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo !!! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 22:21 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 22:01 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 21:11 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 22:27 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 21:37 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 23:00 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 22:28 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 23:51 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 23:00 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 07:56 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:13 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 13:34 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 23:01 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 08:05 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:14 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-14 15:32 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 13:01 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:01 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 18:42 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 17:59 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 20:04 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:00 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 21:52 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 21:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:13 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 21:33 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:51 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 18:37 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 17:46 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 16:49 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 19:27 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 19:35 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 20:45 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 21:59 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 21:07 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:17 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 20:42 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 18:23 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:31 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 03:50 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 23:15 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 22:51 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 07:50 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 09:35 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 17:54 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 11:28 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:12 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:11 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 12:29 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 22:29 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-13 11:28 -0600
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:40 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 18:43 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:52 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:09 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:34 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 13:45 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:51 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:55 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:58 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 14:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 21:06 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:14 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-13 23:06 -0600
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 00:28 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 08:09 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:20 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 16:38 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 10:37 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 17:45 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 11:00 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 18:07 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 11:36 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 18:53 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 18:59 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 12:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 19:12 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 12:24 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 19:29 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 12:57 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 14:17 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 13:29 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 13:26 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 14:40 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 14:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 15:52 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:09 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:28 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:49 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 17:00 -0400
Re: Trickery Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 01:21 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:29 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:39 -0400
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 09:40 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:17 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 14:20 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 14:31 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:13 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:26 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:39 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:42 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 06:51 -0700
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:25 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:36 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:40 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:56 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:02 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 10:24 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 07:38 -0700
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:46 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:52 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 19:53 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:56 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:17 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-10-14 13:07 +0300
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:08 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:11 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 06:54 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-17 16:23 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 10:40 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 18:36 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 19:41 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 19:53 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:54 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-19 16:59 -0500
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
Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 22:41 -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 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
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 18:51 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:58 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 19:09 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 21:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:07 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 22:36 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 09:18 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 02:50 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 19:09 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:19 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:05 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2022-10-13 10:47 +0300
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 09:33 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 10:42 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 12:48 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:37 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 19:40 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:49 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 19:52 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:52 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 15:12 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-13 21:07 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:19 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-13 21:28 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 15:11 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 20:24 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:19 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [-Update-] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-30 11:43 -0500
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 06:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Eva3L.440910$SAT4.151365@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #58857 |
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. 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. Since THIS H is stipulated to return an answer, THIS D is show to halt. Doesn't matter that this H doesn't do that, or can't show that. > > *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. > > > > > >> His other suggestion is to write a reply that is "harsh, scathing and >> designed to make the writer hate you". I can't imagine Professor Sipser >> taking that option. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 16:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87v8oilbiy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #58863 |
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 (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. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 10:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tijt0u$jpe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58885 |
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 Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D correctly simulated by H. > -- 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 Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D correctly simulated by H. > (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH > is also undecidable in general). I am only showing that a simulating halt decider defeats all of the conventional halting problem proofs. I am not showing that is solves the halting problem. >> 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. > Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D correctly simulated by H. This would mean that a simulating halt decider does apply to the actual halting problem proofs. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 18:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <HNk3L.783158$BKL8.432441@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #58888 |
On 10/17/22 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: > 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 > > Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be > correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D > correctly simulated by H. > >> -- 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 > > Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be > correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D > correctly simulated by H. Right, and that correct simulation, to BE correct, needs to duplicte the behavior of D(), which for this H is to return 1. So, you don't have a correct simulation to use, > >> (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH >> is also undecidable in general). > > I am only showing that a simulating halt decider defeats all of the > conventional halting problem proofs. I am not showing that is solves the > halting problem. No, you are showing that you don't understand what you are saying. > >>> 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. >> > > Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be > correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D > correctly simulated by H. > > This would mean that a simulating halt decider does apply to the actual > halting problem proofs. > Yes, but STILL Need to answer based on the ACTUAL behavior of the machine, since that is what a CORRECT simulation will show. Since you H doesn't do that, it isn't correct. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] |
| Message-ID | <tikso2$1o3a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58885 |
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 > (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH > is also undecidable in general). > *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. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] |
| Message-ID | <tikte4$1u9q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58885 |
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 > (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH > is also undecidable in general). > *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. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] |
| Message-ID | <tiktgh$3i0ka$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58940 |
On 10/17/2022 7:53 PM, olcott wrote: > 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 >> (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH >> is also undecidable in general). >> > > *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 can't get Ben's comment to line wrap correctly. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-19 16:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tiprvg$1r4d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58885 |
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? > Because Professor Sipser specifically approved this verbatim abstract: <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> for use in this paper: *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof It seems implausible that I tricked professor Sipser. > 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 > (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH > is also undecidable in general). > We can see in the above paragraph that Ben agrees that H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case) -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-20 22:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (Ben's support) |
| Message-ID | <tit301$144j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58885 |
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 > (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. > I will keep posting this every day reminding people that 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. until someone like Andre gives me an accurate review of this paper. *Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-20 22:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria |
| Message-ID | <tit4d0$i6c2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58885 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-21 15:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria |
| Message-ID | <tiutue$mhhk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58885 |
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? I don't Ben agrees that Richard is evaluating my work using the wrong criteria. *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. > 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 my learned-by-rote from a textbook reviewers. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 14:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria [Paul N Lies] |
| Message-ID | <tj1fp4$vmfe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59136 |
On 10/22/2022 7:19 AM, Paul N wrote: > For those who don't follow comp.theory, I think it is worth pointing out that Ben is trying to deal with PO by encouraging no-one to reply to him. This probably explains the posts here claiming that "Ben agrees" with things it's quite clear he does not agree with, *You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention* *You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention* *You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention* *You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention* These references are on comp.theory: On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case) *This is the "silly" criterion that Ben is referring to* On 10/17/2022 12:11 AM, olcott wrote: > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H > correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running > unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly > report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-22 17:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Paul N is a liar or does not bother to pay attention |
| Message-ID | <tj1poh$vmfe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59136 |
On 10/22/2022 7:19 AM, Paul N wrote: > For those who don't follow comp.theory, I think it is worth pointing out that Ben is trying to deal with PO by encouraging no-one to reply to him. This probably explains the posts here claiming that "Ben agrees" with things it's quite clear he does not agree with, *You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention* *You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention* *You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention* *You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention* These references are on comp.theory: On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case) *This is the "silly" criterion that Ben is referring to* 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. > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 18:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70f5fd04-289f-4206-8ca9-5132bd419c3an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58398 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott 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* > > > -- > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer Peter, I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly. Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.) -Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 20:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7rd3$1juh6$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58437 |
On 10/12/2022 8:51 PM, Philip White wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott 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* >> >> >> -- >> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; >> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer > > > Peter, > > I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this. > > I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly. > > Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.) > > -Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com) Thanks for your review. A simulating halt decider defeats all of the conventional halting problem proofs (now even including the diagonal argument as my most recent breakthrough). It does this by correctly construing all of the conventional "impossible" inputs as specifying the recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern. MIT Professor Michael Sipser has just validated my original notion of a simulating halt decider. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70e1c142-5746-44ae-bc43-0f52ff6c9eacn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58439 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 8:51 PM, Philip White wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott 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* > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > >> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer > > > > > > Peter, > > > > I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this. > > > > I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly. > > > > Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.) > > > > -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com) > Thanks for your review. > You're welcome. > ... It does this by correctly construing all of the > conventional "impossible" inputs as specifying the recursive simulation > non-halting behavior pattern. > Which inputs are impossible? Do you mean inputs that are impossible to decide correctly, i.e., pair <M,I> such that M,I doesn't halt (any halting pair can be decided via direct simulation)? You say that these inputs are "construed" as "specifying the recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern"...the problem is, how will you do this? In order to somehow rebut the halting problem proof, you would need to have a specific algorithm that solves the halting problem every time. If you can't produce that algorithm, it is unlikely that you have a correct proof. It's like if you claimed P = NP non-constructively; either you must produce a correct algorithm that works (and prove that it works, which is often not all that hard), or present a non-constructive proof, where you present a deductive reasoning argument that the algorithm *must* exist. Vaguely stating something about construing some things as other things is not a proof. If you have an intuition about it, that might be neat, but you need to be specific and write something that can be construed as a formal proof--or shorthand for it--to get accepted. > MIT Professor Michael Sipser has just validated my original notion of a > simulating halt decider. Yes, Michael Sipser is an authority on TCS. -Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com) > -- > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 21:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7tbg$5uu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58444 |
On 10/12/2022 9:09 PM, Philip White wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 8:51 PM, Philip White wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott 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*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly.
>>>
>>> Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.)
>>>
>>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
>> Thanks for your review.
>>
>
> You're welcome.
>
>> ... It does this by correctly construing all of the
>> conventional "impossible" inputs as specifying the recursive simulation
>> non-halting behavior pattern.
>>
>
> Which inputs are impossible? Do you mean inputs that are impossible to decide
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem
of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
program and an input, whether the program will finish running,
or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
program-input pairs cannot exist.
For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
// P does the opposite of whatever H decides
void P(ptr x)
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P) reports that its input halts
HERE: goto HERE; // P loops and never halts
return; // else P halts
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
}
H recognizes the recursive simulation of P using the same criteria that
it uses to recognize this:
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
Infinite_Recursion(N);
}
correctly, i.e., pair <M,I> such that M,I doesn't halt (any halting pair
can be decided via direct simulation)? You say that these inputs are
"construed" as "specifying the recursive simulation non-halting behavior
pattern"...the problem is, how will you do this? In order to somehow
rebut the halting problem proof, you would need to have a specific
algorithm that solves the halting problem every time. If you can't
produce that algorithm, it is unlikely that you have a correct proof.
It's like if you claimed P = NP non-constructively; either you must
produce a correct algorithm that works (and prove that it works, which
is often not all that hard), or present a non-constructive proof, where
you present a deductive reasoning argument that the algorithm *must*
exist. Vaguely stating something about construing some things as other
things is not a proof. If you have an intuition about it, that might be
neat, but you need to be specific and write something that can be
construed as a formal proof--or shorthand for it--to get accepted.
>
>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has just validated my original notion of a
>> simulating halt decider.
>
> Yes, Michael Sipser is an authority on TCS.
>
> -Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com)
>
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 20:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <730549ab-d513-4482-8f78-336290c41e20n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58448 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:34:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 9:09 PM, Philip White wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2022 8:51 PM, Philip White wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott 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*
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> >>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Peter,
> >>>
> >>> I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this.
> >>>
> >>> I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly.
> >>>
> >>> Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.)
> >>>
> >>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> >> Thanks for your review.
> >>
> >
> > You're welcome.
> >
> >> ... It does this by correctly construing all of the
> >> conventional "impossible" inputs as specifying the recursive simulation
> >> non-halting behavior pattern.
> >>
> >
> > Which inputs are impossible? Do you mean inputs that are impossible to decide
> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem
> of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
> program and an input, whether the program will finish running,
> or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> program-input pairs cannot exist.
>
Yes, that's exactly right. The key is, "arbitrary" is a word that mathematicians use to mean that "it can be any element from the set." So, if someone writes, "Fix an arbitrary x in the set S such that P(x) is true," where P is some property, then that could be re-written as the logically equivalent statement, "For all x in S, P(x) is true." That is why the Halting Problem proof applies to *all* of the Turing machines in the set of all Turing machines.
> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
> "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own
> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
> what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case*
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
I'm not sure how you defined "pathological," but yes, everything you've said so far is exactly correct.
-Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com)
>
> // P does the opposite of whatever H decides
> void P(ptr x)
> {
> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P) reports that its input halts
> HERE: goto HERE; // P loops and never halts
> return; // else P halts
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> }
>
> H recognizes the recursive simulation of P using the same criteria that
> it uses to recognize this:
>
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
>
> correctly, i.e., pair <M,I> such that M,I doesn't halt (any halting pair
> can be decided via direct simulation)? You say that these inputs are
> "construed" as "specifying the recursive simulation non-halting behavior
> pattern"...the problem is, how will you do this? In order to somehow
> rebut the halting problem proof, you would need to have a specific
> algorithm that solves the halting problem every time. If you can't
> produce that algorithm, it is unlikely that you have a correct proof.
> It's like if you claimed P = NP non-constructively; either you must
> produce a correct algorithm that works (and prove that it works, which
> is often not all that hard), or present a non-constructive proof, where
> you present a deductive reasoning argument that the algorithm *must*
> exist. Vaguely stating something about construing some things as other
> things is not a proof. If you have an intuition about it, that might be
> neat, but you need to be specific and write something that can be
> construed as a formal proof--or shorthand for it--to get accepted.
> >
> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has just validated my original notion of a
> >> simulating halt decider.
> >
> > Yes, Michael Sipser is an authority on TCS.
> >
> > -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> >
>
> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 22:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti814e$16d2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58452 |
On 10/12/2022 10:07 PM, B.H. wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:34:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 9:09 PM, Philip White wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 8:51 PM, Philip White wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.)
>>>>>
>>>>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
>>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>>> ... It does this by correctly construing all of the
>>>> conventional "impossible" inputs as specifying the recursive simulation
>>>> non-halting behavior pattern.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which inputs are impossible? Do you mean inputs that are impossible to decide
>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem
>> of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
>> program and an input, whether the program will finish running,
>> or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
>> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>
>
> Yes, that's exactly right. The key is, "arbitrary" is a word that mathematicians use to mean that "it can be any element from the set." So, if someone writes, "Fix an arbitrary x in the set S such that P(x) is true," where P is some property, then that could be re-written as the logically equivalent statement, "For all x in S, P(x) is true." That is why the Halting Problem proof applies to *all* of the Turing machines in the set of all Turing machines.
>
>
>> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
>> "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own
>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
>> what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case*
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> I'm not sure how you defined "pathological," but yes, everything you've said so far is exactly correct.
>
Wikipedia just explained how they defined pathological and then I
provided the pathological source code below.
> -Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com)
>
>
>>
>> // P does the opposite of whatever H decides
>> void P(ptr x)
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P) reports that its input halts
>> HERE: goto HERE; // P loops and never halts
>> return; // else P halts
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
>> }
>>
>> H recognizes the recursive simulation of P using the same criteria that
>> it uses to recognize this:
>>
>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
>> {
>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
>> }
>>
>> correctly, i.e., pair <M,I> such that M,I doesn't halt (any halting pair
>> can be decided via direct simulation)? You say that these inputs are
>> "construed" as "specifying the recursive simulation non-halting behavior
>> pattern"...the problem is, how will you do this? In order to somehow
>> rebut the halting problem proof, you would need to have a specific
>> algorithm that solves the halting problem every time. If you can't
>> produce that algorithm, it is unlikely that you have a correct proof.
>> It's like if you claimed P = NP non-constructively; either you must
>> produce a correct algorithm that works (and prove that it works, which
>> is often not all that hard), or present a non-constructive proof, where
>> you present a deductive reasoning argument that the algorithm *must*
>> exist. Vaguely stating something about construing some things as other
>> things is not a proof. If you have an intuition about it, that might be
>> neat, but you need to be specific and write something that can be
>> construed as a formal proof--or shorthand for it--to get accepted.
>>>
>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has just validated my original notion of a
>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>> Yes, Michael Sipser is an authority on TCS.
>>>
>>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>> Arthur Schopenhauer
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3d4fc3b-ca19-495e-910f-937a1a06e571n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58455 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:38:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 10:07 PM, B.H. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:34:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2022 9:09 PM, Philip White wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 10/12/2022 8:51 PM, Philip White wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott 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*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> >>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Peter,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> >>>> Thanks for your review.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You're welcome.
> >>>
> >>>> ... It does this by correctly construing all of the
> >>>> conventional "impossible" inputs as specifying the recursive simulation
> >>>> non-halting behavior pattern.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Which inputs are impossible? Do you mean inputs that are impossible to decide
> >> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem
> >> of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
> >> program and an input, whether the program will finish running,
> >> or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
> >> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> >> program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that's exactly right. The key is, "arbitrary" is a word that mathematicians use to mean that "it can be any element from the set." So, if someone writes, "Fix an arbitrary x in the set S such that P(x) is true," where P is some property, then that could be re-written as the logically equivalent statement, "For all x in S, P(x) is true." That is why the Halting Problem proof applies to *all* of the Turing machines in the set of all Turing machines.
> >
> >
> >> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
> >> "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own
> >> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
> >> what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case*
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >
> > I'm not sure how you defined "pathological," but yes, everything you've said so far is exactly correct.
> >
> Wikipedia just explained how they defined pathological and then I
> provided the pathological source code below.
> > -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> >
> >
> >>
> >> // P does the opposite of whatever H decides
> >> void P(ptr x)
> >> {
> >> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >> if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P) reports that its input halts
> >> HERE: goto HERE; // P loops and never halts
> >> return; // else P halts
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >> }
> >>
> >> H recognizes the recursive simulation of P using the same criteria that
> >> it uses to recognize this:
> >>
> >> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> >> {
> >> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> >> }
> >>
> >> correctly, i.e., pair <M,I> such that M,I doesn't halt (any halting pair
> >> can be decided via direct simulation)? You say that these inputs are
> >> "construed" as "specifying the recursive simulation non-halting behavior
> >> pattern"...the problem is, how will you do this? In order to somehow
> >> rebut the halting problem proof, you would need to have a specific
> >> algorithm that solves the halting problem every time. If you can't
> >> produce that algorithm, it is unlikely that you have a correct proof.
> >> It's like if you claimed P = NP non-constructively; either you must
> >> produce a correct algorithm that works (and prove that it works, which
> >> is often not all that hard), or present a non-constructive proof, where
> >> you present a deductive reasoning argument that the algorithm *must*
> >> exist. Vaguely stating something about construing some things as other
> >> things is not a proof. If you have an intuition about it, that might be
> >> neat, but you need to be specific and write something that can be
> >> construed as a formal proof--or shorthand for it--to get accepted.
> >>>
> >>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has just validated my original notion of a
> >>>> simulating halt decider.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, Michael Sipser is an authority on TCS.
> >>>
> >>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
> >>
> >> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> >> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> >> Arthur Schopenhauer
> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur Schopenhauer
OK, so this article?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathology
Did you indicate that pathological is essentially "progressing?" If you could explain how your algorithm is somehow pathological, that would help people to understand if you claim to have a specific argument establishing that the Halting Problem proof is incorrect.
If you would provide more detail, I could give more analytical feedback on your idea...I have a very good background in math, and I know CS too. I can stay with this for now and keep trying to help...I have plenty of time and can try to go back and forth and explain and/or debate issues with your algorithm, if you're willing to get more deeply into it. It sounds like you have sort of a "perimeter defense" up and might be "testing" people to see if they will accept your initial claims. If you are willing to accept the possibility that I might not agree with your initial claims but will still explain the deeper aspects of your approach, according to me, then I would encourage you to keep asking me to help analyze your idea.
I won't have unlimited time in the future, but I do have lots of time now.
-Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web