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 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 22:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pvK1L.623966$iiS8.585526@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #58441 |
On 10/12/22 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/22 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/22 6:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes
>>>>>>> the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of
>>>>>>> argument from authority can constitute strong inductive
>>>>>>> arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.
>>>>>>> Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the
>>>>>>> authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you AGREE that you are using a fallcious argument?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do understand that just because one person, even if they are
>>>>>> knowledgeable in the field says something, that is not actually
>>>>>> PROOF of the statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even a universal consensus of every living being on the planet is
>>>>> not proof. The agreement of one world class expert in the field is
>>>>> enough to get other world class experts to spend a few minutes
>>>>> looking it over.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> Cleaning up you statement:
>>>>>>>> "If H determines that its simulation of D would never
>>>>>>>> stop running, might H abort the simulation and report
>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting machine? "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H might do anything including ignoring its input and and playing
>>>>>>> a game of tic-tac-toe with itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that
>>>>>>> its correct simulation of its input D would never stop running
>>>>>>> unless aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its
>>>>>>> simulation of D and report that D specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And since D Halts, H(D) returing 0 is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, H does NOT correctly determint that its correct simulation
>>>>>> of its input would never halt, but that the correct simulation by
>>>>>> H' of D' would never halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior D simulated by H is the
>>>>> correct measure for the halt status decision by H of D.
>>>>
>>>> Did you explain that YOUR definition of "Correctly Simulated"
>>>> included changing the definition of the copy of H in D to also be a
>>>> pure smulator?
>>>>
>>>> If you don't answer a clear YES, then you are admitting that you
>>>> were being deceptive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What professor Sipser agreed to is quoted below:
>>
>> Which means you still need to prove that H is CORRECT in determining
>> that the ACTUAL INPUT would ever stop if correctly simulated (by H or
>> whatever).
>>
>> Note, he han't agrees that you get to change the code of the H that D
>> calls, so that H still will abort its simulation if this H does
>> eventually abort, and that breaks
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I worked on this for two years full time after I knew his email
>>>>> address and phone number so that I could minimize the use of his
>>>>> time validating my work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Validating the notion of a simulating halt decider was the last
>>>>> sticking point. This key element needed a world class expert to
>>>>> weigh in on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I should drop by his office and show him your papers.
>>>
>>> I forgot you are an MIT grad.
>>>
>>> *He has already seen the link to my rebuttal of his diagonal proof*
>>> (see below) All of my other papers are way too verbose.
>>>
>>> It would be great if you could get him to spend time on carefully
>>> analyzing this 1.5 page paper. It may only take him 15 minutes of
>>> intense concentration. He understands and accepts the notion of a
>>> simulating halt decider. This is my most important breakthrough.
>>>
>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>> Professor Sipser:
>>>
>>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>
>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And you still have the problem of proving that H "correctly determines"
>
> As I have said previously you cannot begin to understand this aspect
> until after you grok all of the details of how H recognizes this
> infinite recursion:
>
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
>
> That you refuse to do that simply proves that you are not sincere.
> These details are contained in Halt7.c
No, I fully understand how that works, but it seems YOU don't because
you don't understand the exact conditions required.
The fact that you don't actually try to explain the EXACT rule you are
using for that (with reference or proof) shows that it is YOU who don't
understand.
I have pointed out the error in the rule you claim, but you don't
understand and still repeat without any support.
You are just proving you don't understand what it means to actually
prove something,
>
> Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
> (a) x86utm operating system
> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
>
>
Right, and that program PROVES you wrong as I have described.
It shows that P(P) Halts, and thus H(P,P) should have returned 1 instead
of 0
You are just too dumb to understand.
You are just proving you aren't actually working on the Halting Problem.
YOU FAIL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 21:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7tdv$5uu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58445 |
On 10/12/2022 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/12/22 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/12/22 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/12/22 6:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/12/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you AGREE that you are using a fallcious argument?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do understand that just because one person, even if they are
>>>>>>> knowledgeable in the field says something, that is not actually
>>>>>>> PROOF of the statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even a universal consensus of every living being on the planet is
>>>>>> not proof. The agreement of one world class expert in the field is
>>>>>> enough to get other world class experts to spend a few minutes
>>>>>> looking it over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> Cleaning up you statement:
>>>>>>>>> "If H determines that its simulation of D would never
>>>>>>>>> stop running, might H abort the simulation and report
>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting machine? "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H might do anything including ignoring its input and and playing
>>>>>>>> a game of tic-tac-toe with itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that
>>>>>>>> its correct simulation of its input D would never stop running
>>>>>>>> unless aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its
>>>>>>>> simulation of D and report that D specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And since D Halts, H(D) returing 0 is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, H does NOT correctly determint that its correct simulation
>>>>>>> of its input would never halt, but that the correct simulation by
>>>>>>> H' of D' would never halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior D simulated by H is the
>>>>>> correct measure for the halt status decision by H of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you explain that YOUR definition of "Correctly Simulated"
>>>>> included changing the definition of the copy of H in D to also be a
>>>>> pure smulator?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't answer a clear YES, then you are admitting that you
>>>>> were being deceptive.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What professor Sipser agreed to is quoted below:
>>>
>>> Which means you still need to prove that H is CORRECT in determining
>>> that the ACTUAL INPUT would ever stop if correctly simulated (by H or
>>> whatever).
>>>
>>> Note, he han't agrees that you get to change the code of the H that D
>>> calls, so that H still will abort its simulation if this H does
>>> eventually abort, and that breaks
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I worked on this for two years full time after I knew his email
>>>>>> address and phone number so that I could minimize the use of his
>>>>>> time validating my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Validating the notion of a simulating halt decider was the last
>>>>>> sticking point. This key element needed a world class expert to
>>>>>> weigh in on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I should drop by his office and show him your papers.
>>>>
>>>> I forgot you are an MIT grad.
>>>>
>>>> *He has already seen the link to my rebuttal of his diagonal proof*
>>>> (see below) All of my other papers are way too verbose.
>>>>
>>>> It would be great if you could get him to spend time on carefully
>>>> analyzing this 1.5 page paper. It may only take him 15 minutes of
>>>> intense concentration. He understands and accepts the notion of a
>>>> simulating halt decider. This is my most important breakthrough.
>>>>
>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>> Professor Sipser:
>>>>
>>>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>>
>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you still have the problem of proving that H "correctly determines"
>>
>> As I have said previously you cannot begin to understand this aspect
>> until after you grok all of the details of how H recognizes this
>> infinite recursion:
>>
>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
>> {
>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
>> }
>>
>> That you refuse to do that simply proves that you are not sincere.
>> These details are contained in Halt7.c
>
> No, I fully understand how that works, but it seems YOU don't because
> you don't understand the exact conditions required.
>
>
> The fact that you don't actually try to explain the EXACT rule you are
> using for that (with reference or proof) shows that it is YOU who don't
> understand.
It is not me it is you that refuse to look at the code.
--
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 | 2022-10-12 22:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Y2L1L.68978$SMP5.13885@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #58449 |
On 10/12/22 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/12/22 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/22 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/12/22 6:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you AGREE that you are using a fallcious argument?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do understand that just because one person, even if they are
>>>>>>>> knowledgeable in the field says something, that is not actually
>>>>>>>> PROOF of the statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even a universal consensus of every living being on the planet is
>>>>>>> not proof. The agreement of one world class expert in the field
>>>>>>> is enough to get other world class experts to spend a few minutes
>>>>>>> looking it over.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good
>>>>>>>>> as the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>> Cleaning up you statement:
>>>>>>>>>> "If H determines that its simulation of D would never
>>>>>>>>>> stop running, might H abort the simulation and report
>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting machine? "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H might do anything including ignoring its input and and
>>>>>>>>> playing a game of tic-tac-toe with itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines
>>>>>>>>> that its correct simulation of its input D would never stop
>>>>>>>>> running unless aborted then it is always correct for H to abort
>>>>>>>>> its simulation of D and report that D specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And since D Halts, H(D) returing 0 is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, H does NOT correctly determint that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>> of its input would never halt, but that the correct simulation
>>>>>>>> by H' of D' would never halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior D simulated by H is the
>>>>>>> correct measure for the halt status decision by H of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you explain that YOUR definition of "Correctly Simulated"
>>>>>> included changing the definition of the copy of H in D to also be
>>>>>> a pure smulator?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't answer a clear YES, then you are admitting that you
>>>>>> were being deceptive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What professor Sipser agreed to is quoted below:
>>>>
>>>> Which means you still need to prove that H is CORRECT in determining
>>>> that the ACTUAL INPUT would ever stop if correctly simulated (by H
>>>> or whatever).
>>>>
>>>> Note, he han't agrees that you get to change the code of the H that
>>>> D calls, so that H still will abort its simulation if this H does
>>>> eventually abort, and that breaks
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I worked on this for two years full time after I knew his email
>>>>>>> address and phone number so that I could minimize the use of his
>>>>>>> time validating my work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Validating the notion of a simulating halt decider was the last
>>>>>>> sticking point. This key element needed a world class expert to
>>>>>>> weigh in on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I should drop by his office and show him your papers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I forgot you are an MIT grad.
>>>>>
>>>>> *He has already seen the link to my rebuttal of his diagonal proof*
>>>>> (see below) All of my other papers are way too verbose.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great if you could get him to spend time on carefully
>>>>> analyzing this 1.5 page paper. It may only take him 15 minutes of
>>>>> intense concentration. He understands and accepts the notion of a
>>>>> simulating halt decider. This is my most important breakthrough.
>>>>>
>>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>>> Professor Sipser:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>>>
>>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you still have the problem of proving that H "correctly determines"
>>>
>>> As I have said previously you cannot begin to understand this aspect
>>> until after you grok all of the details of how H recognizes this
>>> infinite recursion:
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
>>> {
>>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
>>> }
>>>
>>> That you refuse to do that simply proves that you are not sincere.
>>> These details are contained in Halt7.c
>>
>> No, I fully understand how that works, but it seems YOU don't because
>> you don't understand the exact conditions required.
>>
>>
>> The fact that you don't actually try to explain the EXACT rule you are
>> using for that (with reference or proof) shows that it is YOU who
>> don't understand.
>
> It is not me it is you that refuse to look at the code.
>
Why do you say that I refuse to look at the code. Haven't I pointed out
the error in logic of that code?
That just shows how little you value truth, making statements with NO
proof, and actually against the evidence.
You are just proving your duplicity, and stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 18:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ikH1L.623536$iiS8.264549@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #58398 |
On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, 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* > > IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? Did you explain YOUR definiton of "corrcct simulation"? I.E. the GLOBALLY replacing of H with a pure simulator, even for the copy in the input?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 17:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7g4u$1jb5g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58421 |
On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>> looks correct:
<quoted email to professor Sipser>
Here is what I would like to say:
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.
</quoted email to professor Sipser>
<quoted reply from professor Sipser>
Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
</quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>
> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this?
>
Yes.
--
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 | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 16:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87bkqg4n7v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #58424 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>> looks correct:
>
> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
> Here is what I would like to say:
>
> 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.
> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>
> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>
>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this?
>
> Yes.
Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem
proof?
If I understand this correctly, it does not support the idea that a
general "simulating halt decider" can actually exist.
In the above, let D be a program that may or may not halt, and let H be
an observer who attempts to determine whether or not D halts.
Concretely, let D be this C program or equivalent:
int main(void) { while (1) { } }
and I'll be H. I can observe D. I can simulate it until I get bored,
which won't take long (one iteration, two iterations, three iterations,
zzzzzzzzz). I can, while simulating it, conclude that it will never
halt, abort the simulation, and report that it never halts. It wouldn't
be difficult to automate the process in a way that works for this simple
case.
In other words, a halt decider that works correctly for *some* programs
is entirely possible. Nobody disputes that, and the statement that you
report Dr. Sipser made is consistent with that.
What is impossible is a *general* halt decider that can report the halt
status for *any* program.
For example, it would be easy to write a program (assuming unbounded
memory resources) that halts if and only if Goldbach's conjecture is
false. If a general halt decider (simulating or not) existed, it could
be applied to such a program and solve Goldbach's conjecture.
(Goldbach's conjecture is that every even number greater than 2 is the
sum of 2 prime numbers. It has been demonstrated for values up to
4*10^18, but not proven or disproven in general.)
The part you seem to be handwaving over is *how* a simulating halt
decider is able to determine, in *all* cases, that a computation does
not halt. That is what has been proven to be impossible.
(My characterization of "handwaving" might be unfair. I have not read
everything you've posted here, and I have read very little of your
writings elsewhere that you've cited.)
Your premise is
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation of D would
never stop running unless aborted ...
Of course the conclusion follows IF H does what you say. That's
trivial. You would need to demonstrate that H can *always* do so, for
any D.
It would be useful, I suppose, to study your own writings that you've
cited and point out precisely where you went wrong. I personally have
neither the time nor the expertise to do so.
But let me give you a simple challenge:
Write or obtain a program that, assuming unbounded memory, will halt if
and only if Goldbach's conjecture is false. Use whatever language is
most convenient.
Apply your simulating halt decider to this program. The result should
be either "yes, it halts" or "no, it doesn't halt".
Post here and tell us whether Goldbach's conjecture is true or false.
Show your work.
I believe you will be unable to do this.
(It's theoretically possible that someone could prove or disprove
Goldbach's conjecture without solving the halting problem. That would
be very interesting, but I doubt that anyone here has the expertise to
do so.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 19:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7m1b$1og$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58427 |
On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>> looks correct:
>>
>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>
>> 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.
>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>
>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>
>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem
> proof?
>
He agrees
Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating halt
decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs.
Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted.
Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D.
He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to
analyze more than this.
> If I understand this correctly, it does not support the idea that a
> general "simulating halt decider" can actually exist.
>
> In the above, let D be a program that may or may not halt, and let H be
> an observer who attempts to determine whether or not D halts.
> Concretely, let D be this C program or equivalent:
>
> int main(void) { while (1) { } }
>
> and I'll be H. I can observe D. I can simulate it until I get bored,
> which won't take long (one iteration, two iterations, three iterations,
> zzzzzzzzz). I can, while simulating it, conclude that it will never
> halt, abort the simulation, and report that it never halts. It wouldn't
> be difficult to automate the process in a way that works for this simple
> case.
>
H detects a repeating state in D.
> In other words, a halt decider that works correctly for *some* programs
> is entirely possible. Nobody disputes that, and the statement that you
> report Dr. Sipser made is consistent with that.
>
> What is impossible is a *general* halt decider that can report the halt
> status for *any* program.
>
> For example, it would be easy to write a program (assuming unbounded
> memory resources) that halts if and only if Goldbach's conjecture is
> false. If a general halt decider (simulating or not) existed, it could
> be applied to such a program and solve Goldbach's conjecture.
>
> (Goldbach's conjecture is that every even number greater than 2 is the
> sum of 2 prime numbers. It has been demonstrated for values up to
> 4*10^18, but not proven or disproven in general.)
>
> The part you seem to be handwaving over is *how* a simulating halt
> decider is able to determine, in *all* cases, that a computation does
> not halt. That is what has been proven to be impossible.
>
It need not handle all cases, it only need handle the "impossible" input
then all of the conventional proofs have been defeated.
--
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 | 2022-10-12 19:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) |
| Message-ID | <ti7mg2$1jqhk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58429 |
On 10/12/2022 7:27 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>> looks correct: >>> >>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>> Here is what I would like to say: >>> >>> 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. >>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>> >>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>> >>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>> >>> Yes. >> >> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >> proof? >> > This is a typo: > He agrees > *Professor Sipser did not review my proof* *he only agrees with the following* > Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating halt > decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs. > > Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H > correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted. > Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D. > > He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to > analyze more than this. > -- 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 | 2022-10-12 20:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) |
| Message-ID | <2dJ1L.194268$w35c.95194@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #58430 |
On 10/12/22 8:35 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 7:27 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>> looks correct: >>>> >>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>> >>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>> >>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >>> proof? >>> >> > > This is a typo: >> He agrees >> > > *Professor Sipser did not review my proof* > *he only agrees with the following* > >> Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating halt >> decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs. >> >> Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >> correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted. >> Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D. >> >> He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to >> analyze more than this. >> > And probably was not shown what you mean by those terms, thus you are guilty of lying by deception. Note, you haven't actually shown that H CORRECTLY simulates its input until it CORRECTLY deteremines that D would never stop running. Your logic looks at a DIFFERENT D then the actual one. Thus you don't meet the conditions of the premises of your statement, so you don't get the conclusion. You have to show that it is CORRECT with D being the D that calls the H that is making the decision. You logic always make D be based on a different H. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 20:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) |
| Message-ID | <ti7o4m$1juh6$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58432 |
On 10/12/2022 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/12/22 8:35 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/12/2022 7:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>> >>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>> >>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>> >>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >>>> proof? >>>> >>> >> >> This is a typo: >>> He agrees >>> >> >> *Professor Sipser did not review my proof* >> *he only agrees with the following* >> >>> Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating halt >>> decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs. >>> >>> Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>> correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted. >>> Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D. >>> >>> He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to >>> analyze more than this. >>> >> > > And probably was not shown what you mean by those terms, thus you are > guilty of lying by deception. > > Note, you haven't actually shown that H CORRECTLY simulates its input > until it CORRECTLY deteremines that D would never stop running. This is simply beyond your software engineering technical competence. I told you how you can learn about these things and you refused. -- 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 | 2022-10-12 21:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) |
| Message-ID | <LhK1L.402514$wLZ8.366202@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #58434 |
On 10/12/22 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/12/22 8:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/12/2022 7:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>> >>>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>> >>>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>> >>>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >>>>> proof? >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> This is a typo: >>>> He agrees >>>> >>> >>> *Professor Sipser did not review my proof* >>> *he only agrees with the following* >>> >>>> Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating halt >>>> decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs. >>>> >>>> Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>> correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted. >>>> Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D. >>>> >>>> He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to >>>> analyze more than this. >>>> >>> >> >> And probably was not shown what you mean by those terms, thus you are >> guilty of lying by deception. >> >> Note, you haven't actually shown that H CORRECTLY simulates its input >> until it CORRECTLY deteremines that D would never stop running. > > This is simply beyond your software engineering technical competence. > I told you how you can learn about these things and you refused. > No, the truth is beyound YOUR understanding. I suspect I have a much stronger software background than you. Even though my job title isn't "Software", I am still considered one of the top Software Designers in the company I work for. As I remember, you are currently unemployed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 21:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) |
| Message-ID | <ti7rsu$1juh6$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58440 |
On 10/12/2022 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/12/22 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/12/2022 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/12/22 8:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2022 7:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting >>>>>> problem >>>>>> proof? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is a typo: >>>>> He agrees >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Professor Sipser did not review my proof* >>>> *he only agrees with the following* >>>> >>>>> Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating >>>>> halt decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs. >>>>> >>>>> Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>> correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted. >>>>> Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D. >>>>> >>>>> He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to >>>>> analyze more than this. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> And probably was not shown what you mean by those terms, thus you are >>> guilty of lying by deception. >>> >>> Note, you haven't actually shown that H CORRECTLY simulates its input >>> until it CORRECTLY deteremines that D would never stop running. >> >> This is simply beyond your software engineering technical competence. >> I told you how you can learn about these things and you refused. >> > > No, the truth is beyound YOUR understanding. > > I suspect I have a much stronger software background than you. > > Even though my job title isn't "Software", I am still considered one of > the top Software Designers in the company I work for. > > As I remember, you are currently unemployed. I am 67 and retired. If you are a top software designer then you can see how infinite recursion is correctly detected in less than 30 minutes. Look in the Halt7.c file for these details. Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version. (a) x86utm operating system (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip I suspect that you are a top software designer, this makes your review of my work all that much more disingenuous. -- 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 | 2022-10-12 22:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) |
| Message-ID | <izK1L.576780$Ny99.314906@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #58443 |
On 10/12/22 10:07 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/12/22 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/12/2022 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/12/22 8:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 7:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>>>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting >>>>>>> problem >>>>>>> proof? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is a typo: >>>>>> He agrees >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Professor Sipser did not review my proof* >>>>> *he only agrees with the following* >>>>> >>>>>> Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating >>>>>> halt decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>>> correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted. >>>>>> Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D. >>>>>> >>>>>> He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to >>>>>> analyze more than this. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> And probably was not shown what you mean by those terms, thus you >>>> are guilty of lying by deception. >>>> >>>> Note, you haven't actually shown that H CORRECTLY simulates its >>>> input until it CORRECTLY deteremines that D would never stop running. >>> >>> This is simply beyond your software engineering technical competence. >>> I told you how you can learn about these things and you refused. >>> >> >> No, the truth is beyound YOUR understanding. >> >> I suspect I have a much stronger software background than you. >> >> Even though my job title isn't "Software", I am still considered one >> of the top Software Designers in the company I work for. >> >> As I remember, you are currently unemployed. > > I am 67 and retired. likely because you couldn't keep a job. I am 66 and still have many years I can work. > > If you are a top software designer then you can see how infinite > recursion is correctly detected in less than 30 minutes. Look in the > Halt7.c file for these details. IT can detect the infinite recursion in the machines that DO have it. YOu use the wrong rules so you get false positives, as proven by the fact that P(P) will finish even though you claim it has infinite recursion. You "arguements" just show a total lack of understand how computers actually work. > > Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version. > (a) x86utm operating system > (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows > (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c > https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip > > I suspect that you are a top software designer, this makes your review > of my work all that much more disingenuous. > Why, the fact that I point out the clear error in yor code? You are just showing how BAD of a programmer you are to not understand the basics of requirements. You are just showing how bad you are at understanding truth. You are just showing how much of a liar you are. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 20:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v9J1L.540238$6Il8.387537@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #58429 |
On 10/12/22 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>>> looks correct:
>>>
>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>
>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>
>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem
>> proof?
>>
>
> He agrees
>
> Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating halt
> decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs.
>
> Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
> correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted.
> Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D.
>
> He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to
> analyze more than this.
>
>> If I understand this correctly, it does not support the idea that a
>> general "simulating halt decider" can actually exist.
>>
>> In the above, let D be a program that may or may not halt, and let H be
>> an observer who attempts to determine whether or not D halts.
>> Concretely, let D be this C program or equivalent:
>>
>> int main(void) { while (1) { } }
>>
>> and I'll be H. I can observe D. I can simulate it until I get bored,
>> which won't take long (one iteration, two iterations, three iterations,
>> zzzzzzzzz). I can, while simulating it, conclude that it will never
>> halt, abort the simulation, and report that it never halts. It wouldn't
>> be difficult to automate the process in a way that works for this simple
>> case.
>>
>
> H detects a repeating state in D.
No, because you CHANGED D by changig the H it calls to not abort.
The ACTUAL D calls H which simultes D till it calls H(D) and them aborts.
H never actually SAW a repeating state, it just presumes it.
If H doesn't abort at that point, then it needs to simulate the actual
code of H simulating D, and again, it won't ever see this reach a state
that it reached before.
If it doesn't abort, it will never answer, but if it does abort and
return 0, it makes the actual behavior of D to be halts, so it did not
CORRECTLY show that a CORRECT simulation will be non-halting.
>
>> In other words, a halt decider that works correctly for *some* programs
>> is entirely possible. Nobody disputes that, and the statement that you
>> report Dr. Sipser made is consistent with that.
>>
>> What is impossible is a *general* halt decider that can report the halt
>> status for *any* program.
>>
>> For example, it would be easy to write a program (assuming unbounded
>> memory resources) that halts if and only if Goldbach's conjecture is
>> false. If a general halt decider (simulating or not) existed, it could
>> be applied to such a program and solve Goldbach's conjecture.
>>
>> (Goldbach's conjecture is that every even number greater than 2 is the
>> sum of 2 prime numbers. It has been demonstrated for values up to
>> 4*10^18, but not proven or disproven in general.)
>>
>> The part you seem to be handwaving over is *how* a simulating halt
>> decider is able to determine, in *all* cases, that a computation does
>> not halt. That is what has been proven to be impossible.
>>
>
> It need not handle all cases, it only need handle the "impossible" input
> then all of the conventional proofs have been defeated.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 18:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87zge0349m.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #58429 |
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> writes:
> On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>>> looks correct:
>>>
>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>
>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>
>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting
>> problem
>> proof?
>>
>
> He agrees
>
> Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating halt
> decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs.
>
> Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
> correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted.
> Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D.
>
> He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to
> analyze more than this.
>
>> If I understand this correctly, it does not support the idea that a
>> general "simulating halt decider" can actually exist.
>> In the above, let D be a program that may or may not halt, and let H
>> be
>> an observer who attempts to determine whether or not D halts.
>> Concretely, let D be this C program or equivalent:
>> int main(void) { while (1) { } }
>> and I'll be H. I can observe D. I can simulate it until I get
>> bored,
>> which won't take long (one iteration, two iterations, three iterations,
>> zzzzzzzzz). I can, while simulating it, conclude that it will never
>> halt, abort the simulation, and report that it never halts. It wouldn't
>> be difficult to automate the process in a way that works for this simple
>> case.
>>
>
> H detects a repeating state in D.
>
>> In other words, a halt decider that works correctly for *some* programs
>> is entirely possible. Nobody disputes that, and the statement that you
>> report Dr. Sipser made is consistent with that.
>> What is impossible is a *general* halt decider that can report the
>> halt
>> status for *any* program.
>> For example, it would be easy to write a program (assuming unbounded
>> memory resources) that halts if and only if Goldbach's conjecture is
>> false. If a general halt decider (simulating or not) existed, it could
>> be applied to such a program and solve Goldbach's conjecture.
>> (Goldbach's conjecture is that every even number greater than 2 is
>> the
>> sum of 2 prime numbers. It has been demonstrated for values up to
>> 4*10^18, but not proven or disproven in general.)
>> The part you seem to be handwaving over is *how* a simulating halt
>> decider is able to determine, in *all* cases, that a computation does
>> not halt. That is what has been proven to be impossible.
>>
>
> It need not handle all cases, it only need handle the "impossible"
> input then all of the conventional proofs have been defeated.
Given your tendency to include all quoted text in your followups, it's
remarkable that you've carefully deleted the challenge that I presented.
Here it is again:
========================================
But let me give you a simple challenge:
Write or obtain a program that, assuming unbounded memory, will halt if
and only if Goldbach's conjecture is false. Use whatever language is
most convenient.
Apply your simulating halt decider to this program. The result should
be either "yes, it halts" or "no, it doesn't halt".
Post here and tell us whether Goldbach's conjecture is true or false.
Show your work.
I believe you will be unable to do this.
(It's theoretically possible that someone could prove or disprove
Goldbach's conjecture without solving the halting problem. That would
be very interesting, but I doubt that anyone here has the expertise to
do so.)
========================================
Are you able to respond to this challenge? Will you do so?
And one more point of clarification. You've been claiming for many
years to have refuted the proofs that the halting problem cannot be
solved. Do you claim that you can solve the halting problem, or is your
claim merely that the existing proofs are flawed?
Can you actually solve the halting problem?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 20:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7ppi$1juh6$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58435 |
On 10/12/2022 8:23 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> writes:
>> On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>>>> looks correct:
>>>>
>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>>
>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>>
>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting
>>> problem
>>> proof?
>>>
>>
>> He agrees
>>
>> Professor Sipser agrees that my original notion of a simulating halt
>> decider is correct. This is the key element of all of my proofs.
>>
>> Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>> correctly determines that D would never stop running unless aborted.
>> Then H is correct to abort its simulation and reject D.
>>
>> He has > 250 students in his class so he did not have the time to
>> analyze more than this.
>>
>>> If I understand this correctly, it does not support the idea that a
>>> general "simulating halt decider" can actually exist.
>>> In the above, let D be a program that may or may not halt, and let H
>>> be
>>> an observer who attempts to determine whether or not D halts.
>>> Concretely, let D be this C program or equivalent:
>>> int main(void) { while (1) { } }
>>> and I'll be H. I can observe D. I can simulate it until I get
>>> bored,
>>> which won't take long (one iteration, two iterations, three iterations,
>>> zzzzzzzzz). I can, while simulating it, conclude that it will never
>>> halt, abort the simulation, and report that it never halts. It wouldn't
>>> be difficult to automate the process in a way that works for this simple
>>> case.
>>>
>>
>> H detects a repeating state in D.
>>
>>> In other words, a halt decider that works correctly for *some* programs
>>> is entirely possible. Nobody disputes that, and the statement that you
>>> report Dr. Sipser made is consistent with that.
>>> What is impossible is a *general* halt decider that can report the
>>> halt
>>> status for *any* program.
>>> For example, it would be easy to write a program (assuming unbounded
>>> memory resources) that halts if and only if Goldbach's conjecture is
>>> false. If a general halt decider (simulating or not) existed, it could
>>> be applied to such a program and solve Goldbach's conjecture.
>>> (Goldbach's conjecture is that every even number greater than 2 is
>>> the
>>> sum of 2 prime numbers. It has been demonstrated for values up to
>>> 4*10^18, but not proven or disproven in general.)
>>> The part you seem to be handwaving over is *how* a simulating halt
>>> decider is able to determine, in *all* cases, that a computation does
>>> not halt. That is what has been proven to be impossible.
>>>
>>
>> It need not handle all cases, it only need handle the "impossible"
>> input then all of the conventional proofs have been defeated.
>
> Given your tendency to include all quoted text in your followups, it's
> remarkable that you've carefully deleted the challenge that I presented.
>
> Here it is again:
>
> ========================================
> But let me give you a simple challenge:
>
> Write or obtain a program that, assuming unbounded memory, will halt if
> and only if Goldbach's conjecture is false. Use whatever language is
> most convenient.
This is off topic and invalid. I don't want to say how it is invalid
because it is off topic.
--
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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 03:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <875ygol9nk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #58427 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>> looks correct: >> >> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >> Here is what I would like to say: >> >> 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. >> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >> >> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >> >>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >> >> Yes. > > Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem > proof? I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to share a private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as you would expect. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 23:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <CpL1L.112735$OR4c.108341@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #58450 |
On 10/12/22 10:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>> looks correct: >>> >>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>> Here is what I would like to say: >>> >>> 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. >>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>> >>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>> >>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>> >>> Yes. >> >> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >> proof? > > I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to share a > private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as > you would expect. > So I don't need to drop by campus and talk to him?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 22:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti81vj$1g0k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58453 |
On 10/12/2022 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/12/22 10:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>> looks correct: >>>> >>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>> >>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>> >>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >>> proof? >> >> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to share a >> private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as >> you would expect. >> > > So I don't need to drop by campus and talk to him? Go ahead and talk to him, get him to spend 15 minutes on my 1.5 page paper. He can skip page 2. The only thing they he does not quite fully understand is the recursive simulation that I demonstrate on page 1. The first half of page 1 is simply my quotes of his words. He only really needs to focus on the bottom half of page 1. *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof -- 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 | 2022-10-13 07:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UXS1L.61613$kEr7.13220@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #58456 |
On 10/12/22 11:51 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/12/22 10:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>> >>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>> >>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>> >>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >>>> proof? >>> >>> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to share a >>> private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as >>> you would expect. >>> >> >> So I don't need to drop by campus and talk to him? > > > Go ahead and talk to him, get him to spend 15 minutes on my 1.5 page > paper. He can skip page 2. The only thing they he does not quite fully > understand is the recursive simulation that I demonstrate on page 1. > > The first half of page 1 is simply my quotes of his words. He only > really needs to focus on the bottom half of page 1. > > *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof > > > No, I do't need to talk to him to try to "convince" him of something that is incorrect. Your ultimate problem is that you don't understand what you are talking about and have basic misunderstanding of how programs and requirements work. There is ONE correct answer to does a given machine Halt, and one correct answer to the behavior of the input. When you say that H correctly deteremines that its simulation will not complete, what that actually means to people who understand, is that if we gave this input to an actual complete simulator, it would not halt, or if we change this one invocation of H (and somehow not change any other invocations in the system) to not abort, that THIS new machine would run forever. It does NOT mean if we change H to a different machine, and thus change other invocations of H, for example in the input, that the results is shown to be non-halting. If you understood how Turing Machines actually worked, you could see why that is. THe fact that you seem incapable of understanding Turing Machines, is your downfall here. It should be noted that your infinite recursion arguement is just fatally flawed. Infinite Recursion (or whatever) doesn't mean that it would run until it decides to stop. You seem to miss the fundamental fact that BECAUSE H is coded to stop its simulation, becomes PART of the definition of P/D and thus this program DOES decide to stop itself, and thus in not infinite in behavior, The fact that you think it is ok to change the code that part of the input, or even not understanding that changing H does that, just shows your ignorance of how things work. Perhaps the problem is your flawed "First Principles" approach, where you don't bother to learn the actual rules for a system, but try to imagine what they "should" be. The problem is you are too stupid to see the problems that come out of your "First Principle Creation" of a system. You are just showing your stupidity. You have FAILED. You have shown your ignorance. You have shown that you need to use deception to try and get people to believe parts of your logic. You have shown that you don't understand how Truth works, or even how to discuss things using Natural Language. You have killed your reputation and buried it under the giant mound of your falsehoods.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web