On 10/17/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 6:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:

>> Answering a different question doesn't make the original question go
>> away.
> *Unless this "different" question is determined to be equivalent*
> Learned-by-rote people have no way to assess equivalence.
>

But since it isn't, it isn't, and your claims that it is are proven to
be a lie.

If it WAS equivalent then H(P,P) would need to return 1 if P(P) Halts.

Since P(P) DOES Halt, and you have admitted it, the fact that you claim
H(P,P) returning 0 says you criteria is NOT equivalent.

Thus you claim that it is shows you don't know what you are talking about.

PROOF POSITIVE.

Your own words prove you to be wrong.

Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders with
>>>> interest. As a retired software designer and developer, I have a lot
>>>> of practical experience, but not much theoretical education,
>>>> although the theoretical background is very interesting. I learned a
>>>> lot. I would like to verify that I understand it correctly. Could
>>>> you point out any errors in the summary below?
>>>>
>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to halt if
>>>> it reaches its end condition after a finite number of steps. It does
>>>> not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>
>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program that,
>>>> given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite number of
>>>> steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It must
>>>> return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not halt, where 1
>>>> and 0 are a convention, which could also be two other arbitrary
>>>> values.)
>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on the
>>> theory of computation)
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>
>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly meeting
>>> the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>
>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>
>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out my
>> other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions. You left
>> out the points that follow from the definitions. What does that mean.
>> Don't you agree with the definitions, or is something wrong with the
>> other points?
>>
>
> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a simulating halt
> decider other definitions that do not apply to simulating halt deciders
> are irrelevant.

I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have to
conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.

> If I claim that a boat can transport you across the water of a lake to
> the other side when someone claims that I am wrong because an automobile
> cannot transport you across the water of a lake this is the strawman error.
>

If I claim that an automobile is unable to cross the water, then your
remark that a boat can do it, is irrelevant.
Trying to deny it is dangerous, because then people could try to cross
the water with a automobile.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 9:17:28 AM UTC+1, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
> > Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a simulating halt
> > decider other definitions that do not apply to simulating halt deciders
> > are irrelevant.
> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have to
> conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.

The point is a bit theoretical, as halt deciders don't exist, but Olcott is saying that a simulating halt decider is a halt decider which works by simulating the code and looking for a pattern which indicates that the program will not end. As opposed to a halt decider which analysed the code as a whole, or used some other technique. His point is that as his simulating halt decider does (according to him!) exist, and work, then this is a valid halt decider and the proof that there can be no halt decider is refuted and thus proved to be flawed in some (unspecified) way. As I say, no-one else here agrees with this.

On 10/18/2022 7:31 AM, Paul N wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 9:17:28 AM UTC+1, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a simulating halt
>>> decider other definitions that do not apply to simulating halt deciders
>>> are irrelevant.
>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have to
>> conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>
> The point is a bit theoretical, as halt deciders don't exist, but Olcott is saying that a simulating halt decider is a halt decider which works by simulating the code and looking for a pattern which indicates that the program will not end. As opposed to a halt decider which analysed the code as a whole, or used some other technique. His point is that as his simulating halt decider does (according to him!) exist, and work, then this is a valid halt decider and the proof that there can be no halt decider is refuted and thus proved to be flawed in some (unspecified) way. As I say, no-one else here agrees with this.

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
*correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
*unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
> (in this one case)...

Ben seems to agree that
H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders with
>>>>> interest. As a retired software designer and developer, I have a
>>>>> lot of practical experience, but not much theoretical education,
>>>>> although the theoretical background is very interesting. I learned
>>>>> a lot. I would like to verify that I understand it correctly. Could
>>>>> you point out any errors in the summary below?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to halt if
>>>>> it reaches its end condition after a finite number of steps. It
>>>>> does not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
>>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program that,
>>>>> given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite number of
>>>>> steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It must
>>>>> return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not halt, where 1
>>>>> and 0 are a convention, which could also be two other arbitrary
>>>>> values.)
>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>> report
>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on the
>>>> theory of computation)
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>
>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly meeting
>>>> the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>
>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>
>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out my
>>> other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions. You left
>>> out the points that follow from the definitions. What does that mean.
>>> Don't you agree with the definitions, or is something wrong with the
>>> other points?
>>>
>>
>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a simulating
>> halt decider other definitions that do not apply to simulating halt
>> deciders are irrelevant.
>
> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have to
> conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>

That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars do not
fly and we were talking about cars.

The innovation of a simulating is the only element required to defeat
the conventional halting problem proofs.

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
*correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
*unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

>> If I claim that a boat can transport you across the water of a lake to
>> the other side when someone claims that I am wrong because an
>> automobile cannot transport you across the water of a lake this is the
>> strawman error.
>>
>
> If I claim that an automobile is unable to cross the water, then your
> remark that a boat can do it, is irrelevant.
> Trying to deny it is dangerous, because then people could try to cross
> the water with a automobile.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders with
>>>>>> interest. As a retired software designer and developer, I have a
>>>>>> lot of practical experience, but not much theoretical education,
>>>>>> although the theoretical background is very interesting. I learned
>>>>>> a lot. I would like to verify that I understand it correctly.
>>>>>> Could you point out any errors in the summary below?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to halt
>>>>>> if it reaches its end condition after a finite number of steps. It
>>>>>> does not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
>>>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program
>>>>>> that, given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite
>>>>>> number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It must
>>>>>> return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not halt, where 1
>>>>>> and 0 are a convention, which could also be two other arbitrary
>>>>>> values.)
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>> report
>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on the
>>>>> theory of computation)
>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>
>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly meeting
>>>>> the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>
>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out my
>>>> other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions. You
>>>> left out the points that follow from the definitions. What does that
>>>> mean. Don't you agree with the definitions, or is something wrong
>>>> with the other points?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a simulating
>>> halt decider other definitions that do not apply to simulating halt
>>> deciders are irrelevant.
>>
>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have to
>> conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>>
>
> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars do not
> fly and we were talking about cars.

If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the subject to
airplanes.
But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try to fly
with it.

On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders with
>>>>>>> interest. As a retired software designer and developer, I have a
>>>>>>> lot of practical experience, but not much theoretical education,
>>>>>>> although the theoretical background is very interesting. I
>>>>>>> learned a lot. I would like to verify that I understand it
>>>>>>> correctly. Could you point out any errors in the summary below?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to halt
>>>>>>> if it reaches its end condition after a finite number of steps.
>>>>>>> It does not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
>>>>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program
>>>>>>> that, given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite
>>>>>>> number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It must
>>>>>>> return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not halt, where
>>>>>>> 1 and 0 are a convention, which could also be two other arbitrary
>>>>>>> values.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>>> report
>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on the
>>>>>> theory of computation)
>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly
>>>>>> meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out my
>>>>> other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions. You
>>>>> left out the points that follow from the definitions. What does
>>>>> that mean. Don't you agree with the definitions, or is something
>>>>> wrong with the other points?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>> report
>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a simulating
>>>> halt decider other definitions that do not apply to simulating halt
>>>> deciders are irrelevant.
>>>
>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
>>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have
>>> to conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars do
>> not fly and we were talking about cars.
>
> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the subject to
> airplanes.
> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try to fly
> with it.
>

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
*correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
*unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does correctly
determine the halt status of its input.

The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does correctly
determine the halt status of its inputs.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders with
>>>>>>>> interest. As a retired software designer and developer, I have a
>>>>>>>> lot of practical experience, but not much theoretical education,
>>>>>>>> although the theoretical background is very interesting. I
>>>>>>>> learned a lot. I would like to verify that I understand it
>>>>>>>> correctly. Could you point out any errors in the summary below?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to halt
>>>>>>>> if it reaches its end condition after a finite number of steps.
>>>>>>>> It does not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
>>>>>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program
>>>>>>>> that, given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite
>>>>>>>> number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It must
>>>>>>>> return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not halt, where
>>>>>>>> 1 and 0 are a convention, which could also be two other
>>>>>>>> arbitrary values.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>>>> report
>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on the
>>>>>>> theory of computation)
>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly
>>>>>>> meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out my
>>>>>> other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions. You
>>>>>> left out the points that follow from the definitions. What does
>>>>>> that mean. Don't you agree with the definitions, or is something
>>>>>> wrong with the other points?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>> report
>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a simulating
>>>>> halt decider other definitions that do not apply to simulating halt
>>>>> deciders are irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
>>>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have
>>>> to conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars do
>>> not fly and we were talking about cars.
>>
>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the subject
>> to airplanes.
>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try to
>> fly with it.
>>
>
> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does correctly
> determine the halt status of its input.
>
> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does correctly
> determine the halt status of its inputs.

I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I included a
definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the subject to things
with other definitions? Cars, airplanes, simulating halt deciders,
boats, automobiles? Please, stay at the subject.

On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders with
>>>>>>>>> interest. As a retired software designer and developer, I have
>>>>>>>>> a lot of practical experience, but not much theoretical
>>>>>>>>> education, although the theoretical background is very
>>>>>>>>> interesting. I learned a lot. I would like to verify that I
>>>>>>>>> understand it correctly. Could you point out any errors in the
>>>>>>>>> summary below?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to
>>>>>>>>> halt if it reaches its end condition after a finite number of
>>>>>>>>> steps. It does not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
>>>>>>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program
>>>>>>>>> that, given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite
>>>>>>>>> number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It
>>>>>>>>> must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not halt,
>>>>>>>>> where 1 and 0 are a convention, which could also be two other
>>>>>>>>> arbitrary values.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on the
>>>>>>>> theory of computation)
>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly
>>>>>>>> meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out
>>>>>>> my other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions.
>>>>>>> You left out the points that follow from the definitions. What
>>>>>>> does that mean. Don't you agree with the definitions, or is
>>>>>>> something wrong with the other points?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>>> report
>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not apply to
>>>>>> simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
>>>>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have
>>>>> to conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars do
>>>> not fly and we were talking about cars.
>>>
>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the subject
>>> to airplanes.
>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try to
>>> fly with it.
>>>
>>
>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
>> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does correctly
>> determine the halt status of its input.
>>
>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does correctly
>> determine the halt status of its inputs.
>
> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I included a
> definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the subject to things
> with other definitions? Cars, airplanes, simulating halt deciders,
> boats, automobiles? Please, stay at the subject.

The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider does
correctly determine the halt status of the input that it simulates.

Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the theory of
computation would seem to have the knowledge required to approve
alternative definitions for halt deciders.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295

Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the conventional HP
proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot defeat these proofs seems a
little silly.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
>>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders with
>>>>>>>>>> interest. As a retired software designer and developer, I have
>>>>>>>>>> a lot of practical experience, but not much theoretical
>>>>>>>>>> education, although the theoretical background is very
>>>>>>>>>> interesting. I learned a lot. I would like to verify that I
>>>>>>>>>> understand it correctly. Could you point out any errors in the
>>>>>>>>>> summary below?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to
>>>>>>>>>> halt if it reaches its end condition after a finite number of
>>>>>>>>>> steps. It does not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
>>>>>>>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program
>>>>>>>>>> that, given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite
>>>>>>>>>> number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It
>>>>>>>>>> must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not
>>>>>>>>>> halt, where 1 and 0 are a convention, which could also be two
>>>>>>>>>> other arbitrary values.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no
>>>>>>>>> more)
>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
>>>>>>>>> the theory of computation)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly
>>>>>>>>> meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out
>>>>>>>> my other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions.
>>>>>>>> You left out the points that follow from the definitions. What
>>>>>>>> does that mean. Don't you agree with the definitions, or is
>>>>>>>> something wrong with the other points?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>>>> report
>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
>>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not apply to
>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
>>>>>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I
>>>>>> have to conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars
>>>>> do not fly and we were talking about cars.
>>>>
>>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the subject
>>>> to airplanes.
>>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try to
>>>> fly with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
>>> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does correctly
>>> determine the halt status of its input.
>>>
>>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does correctly
>>> determine the halt status of its inputs.
>>
>> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I included
>> a definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the subject to
>> things with other definitions? Cars, airplanes, simulating halt
>> deciders, boats, automobiles? Please, stay at the subject.
>
> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider does
> correctly determine the halt status of the input that it simulates.
>
> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the theory of
> computation would seem to have the knowledge required to approve
> alternative definitions for halt deciders.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>
> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the conventional HP
> proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot defeat these proofs seems a
> little silly.
>

So, your contribution is irrelevant, because you want to change
definitions and you cannot show any error in the 9 points I was asking
about.
Don't change the subject, please.

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 1:01:52 AM UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> > Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
> >> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
> >>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders with
> >>>>>>>>> interest. As a retired software designer and developer, I have
> >>>>>>>>> a lot of practical experience, but not much theoretical
> >>>>>>>>> education, although the theoretical background is very
> >>>>>>>>> interesting. I learned a lot. I would like to verify that I
> >>>>>>>>> understand it correctly. Could you point out any errors in the
> >>>>>>>>> summary below?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to
> >>>>>>>>> halt if it reaches its end condition after a finite number of
> >>>>>>>>> steps. It does not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
> >>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
> >>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
> >>>>>>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program
> >>>>>>>>> that, given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite
> >>>>>>>>> number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
> >>>>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It
> >>>>>>>>> must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not halt,
> >>>>>>>>> where 1 and 0 are a convention, which could also be two other
> >>>>>>>>> arbitrary values.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
> >>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
> >>>>>>>> until H
> >>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
> >>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
> >>>>>>>> correctly report
> >>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
> >>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on the
> >>>>>>>> theory of computation)
> >>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
> >>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly
> >>>>>>>> meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out
> >>>>>>> my other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions.
> >>>>>>> You left out the points that follow from the definitions. What
> >>>>>>> does that mean. Don't you agree with the definitions, or is
> >>>>>>> something wrong with the other points?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
> >>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
> >>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
> >>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
> >>>>>> report
> >>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
> >>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not apply to
> >>>>>> simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
> >>>>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have
> >>>>> to conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars do
> >>>> not fly and we were talking about cars.
> >>>
> >>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the subject
> >>> to airplanes.
> >>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try to
> >>> fly with it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
> >> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
> >> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
> >> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
> >> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>
> >> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does correctly
> >> determine the halt status of its input.
> >>
> >> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does correctly
> >> determine the halt status of its inputs.
> >
> > I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I included a
> > definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the subject to things
> > with other definitions? Cars, airplanes, simulating halt deciders,
> > boats, automobiles? Please, stay at the subject.
> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider does
> correctly determine the halt status of the input that it simulates.
>
> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the theory of
> computation would seem to have the knowledge required to approve
> alternative definitions for halt deciders.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>
> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the conventional HP
> proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot defeat these proofs seems a
> little silly.
> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Does your H (POOH) halts?
H(H,H) halts? Endless recursive definition !!!

On 10/19/2022 12:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
>> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders
>>>>>>>>>>> with interest. As a retired software designer and developer,
>>>>>>>>>>> I have a lot of practical experience, but not much
>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical education, although the theoretical background is
>>>>>>>>>>> very interesting. I learned a lot. I would like to verify
>>>>>>>>>>> that I understand it correctly. Could you point out any
>>>>>>>>>>> errors in the summary below?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to
>>>>>>>>>>> halt if it reaches its end condition after a finite number of
>>>>>>>>>>> steps. It does not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
>>>>>>>>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program
>>>>>>>>>>> that, given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite
>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It
>>>>>>>>>>> must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not
>>>>>>>>>>> halt, where 1 and 0 are a convention, which could also be two
>>>>>>>>>>> other arbitrary values.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no
>>>>>>>>>> more)
>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
>>>>>>>>>> the theory of computation)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not
>>>>>>>>>> aborted?
>>>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly
>>>>>>>>>> meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out
>>>>>>>>> my other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions.
>>>>>>>>> You left out the points that follow from the definitions. What
>>>>>>>>> does that mean. Don't you agree with the definitions, or is
>>>>>>>>> something wrong with the other points?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not apply to
>>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
>>>>>>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I
>>>>>>> have to conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars
>>>>>> do not fly and we were talking about cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the
>>>>> subject to airplanes.
>>>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try to
>>>>> fly with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
>>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
>>>> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does correctly
>>>> determine the halt status of its input.
>>>>
>>>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does correctly
>>>> determine the halt status of its inputs.
>>>
>>> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I included
>>> a definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the subject to
>>> things with other definitions? Cars, airplanes, simulating halt
>>> deciders, boats, automobiles? Please, stay at the subject.
>>
>> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider does
>> correctly determine the halt status of the input that it simulates.
>>
>> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the theory
>> of computation would seem to have the knowledge required to approve
>> alternative definitions for halt deciders.
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>>
>> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the conventional
>> HP proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot defeat these proofs
>> seems a little silly.
>>
>
> So, your contribution is irrelevant, because you want to change
> definitions and you cannot show any error in the 9 points I was asking
> about.
> Don't change the subject, please.

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve
the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.

For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Disgusting Dishonest Crank Peter Olcott (burn in Hell!) wrote:
> H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop

Nevertheless D halts.

Either the determination is not correct or the simulation is
not correct. PERIOD.

On 10/19/2022 12:15 PM, wij wrote:
> On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 1:01:52 AM UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders with
>>>>>>>>>>> interest. As a retired software designer and developer, I have
>>>>>>>>>>> a lot of practical experience, but not much theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>> education, although the theoretical background is very
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting. I learned a lot. I would like to verify that I
>>>>>>>>>>> understand it correctly. Could you point out any errors in the
>>>>>>>>>>> summary below?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to
>>>>>>>>>>> halt if it reaches its end condition after a finite number of
>>>>>>>>>>> steps. It does not halt if it continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in the
>>>>>>>>>>> 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a program
>>>>>>>>>>> that, given a program X with input Y decides, after a finite
>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It
>>>>>>>>>>> must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not halt,
>>>>>>>>>>> where 1 and 0 are a convention, which could also be two other
>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary values.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on the
>>>>>>>>>> theory of computation)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly
>>>>>>>>>> meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left out
>>>>>>>>> my other points from the quote. You quote only the definitions.
>>>>>>>>> You left out the points that follow from the definitions. What
>>>>>>>>> does that mean. Don't you agree with the definitions, or is
>>>>>>>>> something wrong with the other points?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>>>>> report
>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not apply to
>>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
>>>>>>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I have
>>>>>>> to conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars do
>>>>>> not fly and we were talking about cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the subject
>>>>> to airplanes.
>>>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try to
>>>>> fly with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
>>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
>>>> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does correctly
>>>> determine the halt status of its input.
>>>>
>>>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does correctly
>>>> determine the halt status of its inputs.
>>>
>>> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I included a
>>> definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the subject to things
>>> with other definitions? Cars, airplanes, simulating halt deciders,
>>> boats, automobiles? Please, stay at the subject.
>> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider does
>> correctly determine the halt status of the input that it simulates.
>>
>> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the theory of
>> computation would seem to have the knowledge required to approve
>> alternative definitions for halt deciders.
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>>
>> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the conventional HP
>> proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot defeat these proofs seems a
>> little silly.
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> Does your H (POOH) halts?
> H(H,H) halts? Endless recursive definition !!!

That cannot possibly work because H takes two arguments and you only
gave the simulated H one argument.

Now that a simulating halt decider has been verified to correctly
determine the halt status of its input a simulating halt decider *is* a
halt decider, thus applies to the original halting problem proofs.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Disgusting FRAUD Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> Now that a simulating halt decider has been verified to correctly
> determine the halt status of its input

The opposite has been verified : your "halt decider" does not correctly
determine the halt status of its input. H(D,D) = 0 AND D halts.

> a simulating halt decider *is* a
> halt decider, thus applies to the original halting problem proofs.

Hence it is NOT an halt decider. PERIOD.

Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
> On 10/19/2022 12:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
>>> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>> with interest. As a retired software designer and developer,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a lot of practical experience, but not much
>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical education, although the theoretical background
>>>>>>>>>>>> is very interesting. I learned a lot. I would like to verify
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I understand it correctly. Could you point out any
>>>>>>>>>>>> errors in the summary below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt if it reaches its end condition after a finite number
>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. It does not halt if it continues to execute
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> program that, given a program X with input Y decides, after
>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, where 1 and 0 are a convention, which could also be
>>>>>>>>>>>> two other arbitrary values.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no
>>>>>>>>>>> more)
>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
>>>>>>>>>>> the theory of computation)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not
>>>>>>>>>>> aborted?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly
>>>>>>>>>>> meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left
>>>>>>>>>> out my other points from the quote. You quote only the
>>>>>>>>>> definitions. You left out the points that follow from the
>>>>>>>>>> definitions. What does that mean. Don't you agree with the
>>>>>>>>>> definitions, or is something wrong with the other points?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no
>>>>>>>>> more)
>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not apply to
>>>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about halt
>>>>>>>> deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the same, I
>>>>>>>> have to conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because cars
>>>>>>> do not fly and we were talking about cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the
>>>>>> subject to airplanes.
>>>>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try
>>>>>> to fly with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H*
>>>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
>>>>> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does correctly
>>>>> determine the halt status of its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does correctly
>>>>> determine the halt status of its inputs.
>>>>
>>>> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I
>>>> included a definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the
>>>> subject to things with other definitions? Cars, airplanes,
>>>> simulating halt deciders, boats, automobiles? Please, stay at the
>>>> subject.
>>>
>>> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider does
>>> correctly determine the halt status of the input that it simulates.
>>>
>>> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the theory
>>> of computation would seem to have the knowledge required to approve
>>> alternative definitions for halt deciders.
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>>>
>>> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the conventional
>>> HP proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot defeat these proofs
>>> seems a little silly.
>>>
>>
>> So, your contribution is irrelevant, because you want to change
>> definitions and you cannot show any error in the 9 points I was asking
>> about.
>> Don't change the subject, please.
>
> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
> input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
> forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve
> the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
>
> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
> H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> H(D,D) correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that
> its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted thus exactly
> matching the Wikipedia definition of an H can that handles this case.
>

On 10/20/2022 2:28 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
>> On 10/19/2022 12:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with interest. As a retired software designer and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer, I have a lot of practical experience, but not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> much theoretical education, although the theoretical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> background is very interesting. I learned a lot. I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like to verify that I understand it correctly. Could you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point out any errors in the summary below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is said to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt if it reaches its end condition after a finite number
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps. It does not halt if it continues to execute
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an unhandled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> program that, given a program X with input Y decides, after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of steps. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if X(Y) does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, where 1 and 0 are a convention, which could also be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two other arbitrary values.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> no more)
>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT
>>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory of computation)
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not
>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly
>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you left
>>>>>>>>>>> out my other points from the quote. You quote only the
>>>>>>>>>>> definitions. You left out the points that follow from the
>>>>>>>>>>> definitions. What does that mean. Don't you agree with the
>>>>>>>>>>> definitions, or is something wrong with the other points?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no
>>>>>>>>>> more)
>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not apply to
>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about
>>>>>>>>> halt deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the
>>>>>>>>> same, I have to conclude that your contribution is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because
>>>>>>>> cars do not fly and we were talking about cars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the
>>>>>>> subject to airplanes.
>>>>>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to try
>>>>>>> to fly with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H*
>>>>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running*
>>>>>> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does correctly
>>>>>> determine the halt status of its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does correctly
>>>>>> determine the halt status of its inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I
>>>>> included a definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the
>>>>> subject to things with other definitions? Cars, airplanes,
>>>>> simulating halt deciders, boats, automobiles? Please, stay at the
>>>>> subject.
>>>>
>>>> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider does
>>>> correctly determine the halt status of the input that it simulates.
>>>>
>>>> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the
>>>> theory of computation would seem to have the knowledge required to
>>>> approve alternative definitions for halt deciders.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>>>>
>>>> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the
>>>> conventional HP proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot defeat
>>>> these proofs seems a little silly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, your contribution is irrelevant, because you want to change
>>> definitions and you cannot show any error in the 9 points I was
>>> asking about.
>>> Don't change the subject, please.
>>
>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
>> an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
>> forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve
>> the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>
>> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
>> what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>
>> H(D,D) correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines
>> that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted thus
>> exactly matching the Wikipedia definition of an H can that handles
>> this case.
>>
>
> Your H returns 0, but D halts. Again you changed the subject.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:58:01 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/20/2022 2:28 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> > Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
> >> On 10/19/2022 12:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
> >>>> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> deciders with interest. As a retired software designer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer, I have a lot of practical experience,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but not much theoretical education, although the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical background is very interesting. I learned a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> lot. I would like to verify that I understand it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. Could you point out any errors in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> summary below?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> said to halt if it reaches its end condition after a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number of steps. It does not halt if it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> continues to execute infinitely.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> unhandled 'exception'.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> program that, given a program X with input Y decides,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> after a finite number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not. (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> steps. It must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> X(Y) does not halt, where 1 and 0 are a convention,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which could also be two other arbitrary values.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (and no more)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
> >>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>> stop running
> >>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by
> >>>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling
> >>>>>>>>>>>> book on the theory of computation)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is shown above and paraphrased below:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not aborted?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown
> >>>>>>>>>>>> above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you
> >>>>>>>>>>> left out my other points from the quote. You quote only
> >>>>>>>>>>> the definitions. You left out the points that follow from
> >>>>>>>>>>> the definitions. What does that mean. Don't you agree
> >>>>>>>>>>> with the definitions, or is something wrong with the
> >>>>>>>>>>> other points?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and
> >>>>>>>>>> no more)
> >>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
> >>>>>>>>>> D until H
> >>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
> >>>>>>>>>> running
> >>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
> >>>>>>>>>> correctly report
> >>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
> >>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not
> >>>>>>>>>> apply to simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about
> >>>>>>>>> halt deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the
> >>>>>>>>> same, I have to conclude that your contribution is
> >>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because
> >>>>>>>> cars do not fly and we were talking about cars.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the
> >>>>>>> subject to airplanes.
> >>>>>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to
> >>>>>>> try to fly with it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no
> >>>>>> more) If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its
> >>>>>> input D until H*
> >>>>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
> >>>>>> running* *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D
> >>>>>> and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence
> >>>>>> of configurations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does
> >>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of its input.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does
> >>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of its inputs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I
> >>>>> included a definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the
> >>>>> subject to things with other definitions? Cars, airplanes,
> >>>>> simulating halt deciders, boats, automobiles? Please, stay at
> >>>>> the subject.
> >>>>
> >>>> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider does
> >>>> correctly determine the halt status of the input that it
> >>>> simulates.
> >>>>
> >>>> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the
> >>>> theory of computation would seem to have the knowledge required
> >>>> to approve alternative definitions for halt deciders.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
> >>>>
> >>>> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the
> >>>> conventional HP proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot
> >>>> defeat these proofs seems a little silly.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> So, your contribution is irrelevant, because you want to change
> >>> definitions and you cannot show any error in the 9 points I was
> >>> asking about.
> >>> Don't change the subject, please.
> >>
> >> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
> >> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
> >> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
> >> to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general
> >> algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> >> program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>
> >> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
> >> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
> >> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
> >> what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >>
> >> H(D,D) correctly simulates its input D until H correctly
> >> determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless
> >> aborted thus exactly matching the Wikipedia definition of an H can
> >> that handles this case.
> >>
> >
> > Your H returns 0, but D halts. Again you changed the subject.
>
> You continue to look for a black dog in the kitchen by looking for a
> white cat in the living room because you only understand these things
> on the basis of learned-by-rote.
>
> That the behavior of the input D correctly simulated by H is
> validated as the correct basis for a halt status decision prevents
> anyone from correctly disagreeing with this basis within this
> validated basis.

On 10/20/2022 4:29 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:58:01 -0500
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2022 2:28 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 10/19/2022 12:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciders with interest. As a retired software designer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer, I have a lot of practical experience,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not much theoretical education, although the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical background is very interesting. I learned a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot. I would like to verify that I understand it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. Could you point out any errors in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to halt if it reaches its end condition after a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number of steps. It does not halt if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program that, given a program X with input Y decides,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after a finite number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps. It must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X(Y) does not halt, where 1 and 0 are a convention,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which could also be two other arbitrary values.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and no more)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> book on the theory of computation)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not aborted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> left out my other points from the quote. You quote only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definitions. You left out the points that follow from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definitions. What does that mean. Don't you agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the definitions, or is something wrong with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other points?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> no more)
>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
>>>>>>>>>>>> D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but about
>>>>>>>>>>> halt deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are not the
>>>>>>>>>>> same, I have to conclude that your contribution is
>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly because
>>>>>>>>>> cars do not fly and we were talking about cars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the
>>>>>>>>> subject to airplanes.
>>>>>>>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to
>>>>>>>>> try to fly with it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no
>>>>>>>> more) If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>> input D until H*
>>>>>>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>> running* *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D
>>>>>>>> and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence
>>>>>>>> of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does
>>>>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does
>>>>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of its inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I
>>>>>>> included a definition (see above). Why do you keep changing the
>>>>>>> subject to things with other definitions? Cars, airplanes,
>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders, boats, automobiles? Please, stay at
>>>>>>> the subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider does
>>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of the input that it
>>>>>> simulates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the
>>>>>> theory of computation would seem to have the knowledge required
>>>>>> to approve alternative definitions for halt deciders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the
>>>>>> conventional HP proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot
>>>>>> defeat these proofs seems a little silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, your contribution is irrelevant, because you want to change
>>>>> definitions and you cannot show any error in the 9 points I was
>>>>> asking about.
>>>>> Don't change the subject, please.
>>>>
>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>>>> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
>>>> to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general
>>>> algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
>>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>>>
>>>> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
>>>> what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>
>>>> H(D,D) correctly simulates its input D until H correctly
>>>> determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless
>>>> aborted thus exactly matching the Wikipedia definition of an H can
>>>> that handles this case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your H returns 0, but D halts. Again you changed the subject.
>>
>> You continue to look for a black dog in the kitchen by looking for a
>> white cat in the living room because you only understand these things
>> on the basis of learned-by-rote.
>>
>> That the behavior of the input D correctly simulated by H is
>> validated as the correct basis for a halt status decision prevents
>> anyone from correctly disagreeing with this basis within this
>> validated basis.
>
> If D(D) halts then H(D,D) should return a decision of halts (1).
>
> /Flibble
>

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:44:31 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/20/2022 4:29 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:58:01 -0500
> > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/20/2022 2:28 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
> >>>> On 10/19/2022 12:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciders with interest. As a retired software designer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer, I have a lot of practical experience,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not much theoretical education, although the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical background is very interesting. I learned
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot. I would like to verify that I understand it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. Could you point out any errors in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary below?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to halt if it reaches its end condition after a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number of steps. It does not halt if it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continues to execute infinitely.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unhandled 'exception'.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program that, given a program X with input Y decides,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after a finite number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps. It must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X(Y) does not halt, where 1 and 0 are a convention,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which could also be two other arbitrary values.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and no more)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling book on the theory of computation)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is shown above and paraphrased below:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not aborted?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> left out my other points from the quote. You quote only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the definitions. You left out the points that follow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from the definitions. What does that mean. Don't you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with the definitions, or is something wrong with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the other points?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (and no more)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
> >>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>> stop running
> >>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> apply to simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but
> >>>>>>>>>>> about halt deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are
> >>>>>>>>>>> not the same, I have to conclude that your contribution is
> >>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly
> >>>>>>>>>> because cars do not fly and we were talking about cars.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the
> >>>>>>>>> subject to airplanes.
> >>>>>>>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to
> >>>>>>>>> try to fly with it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no
> >>>>>>>> more) If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its
> >>>>>>>> input D until H*
> >>>>>>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
> >>>>>>>> running* *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of
> >>>>>>>> D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting
> >>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does
> >>>>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of its input.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does
> >>>>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of its inputs.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I
> >>>>>>> included a definition (see above). Why do you keep changing
> >>>>>>> the subject to things with other definitions? Cars, airplanes,
> >>>>>>> simulating halt deciders, boats, automobiles? Please, stay at
> >>>>>>> the subject.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider
> >>>>>> does correctly determine the halt status of the input that it
> >>>>>> simulates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the
> >>>>>> theory of computation would seem to have the knowledge required
> >>>>>> to approve alternative definitions for halt deciders.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the
> >>>>>> conventional HP proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot
> >>>>>> defeat these proofs seems a little silly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, your contribution is irrelevant, because you want to change
> >>>>> definitions and you cannot show any error in the 9 points I was
> >>>>> asking about.
> >>>>> Don't change the subject, please.
> >>>>
> >>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
> >>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
> >>>> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or
> >>>> continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
> >>>> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> >>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
> >>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its
> >>>> own source and its input to H and then specifically do the
> >>>> opposite of what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that
> >>>> handles this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >>>>
> >>>> H(D,D) correctly simulates its input D until H correctly
> >>>> determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless
> >>>> aborted thus exactly matching the Wikipedia definition of an H
> >>>> can that handles this case.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Your H returns 0, but D halts. Again you changed the subject.
> >>
> >> You continue to look for a black dog in the kitchen by looking for
> >> a white cat in the living room because you only understand these
> >> things on the basis of learned-by-rote.
> >>
> >> That the behavior of the input D correctly simulated by H is
> >> validated as the correct basis for a halt status decision prevents
> >> anyone from correctly disagreeing with this basis within this
> >> validated basis.
> >
> > If D(D) halts then H(D,D) should return a decision of halts (1).
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> One would think so until one looked at all of the details.

On 10/21/2022 8:59 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:44:31 -0500
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2022 4:29 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:58:01 -0500
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2022 2:28 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 10/19/2022 12:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 19.okt..2022 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 10/19/2022 11:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 21:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 2:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.okt..2022 om 17:02 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2022 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 23:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.okt..2022 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been following the discussions about Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciders with interest. As a retired software designer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and developer, I have a lot of practical experience,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but not much theoretical education, although the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretical background is very interesting. I learned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a lot. I would like to verify that I understand it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. Could you point out any errors in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) (Definition of halt) A program X with input Y is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to halt if it reaches its end condition after a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number of steps. It does not halt if it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continues to execute infinitely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (So, X(Y) either halts, or it does not halt.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (It is irrelevant whether the end condition is reached
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the 'normal' way, or by other means, e.g. an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unhandled 'exception'.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) (Definition of halt decider) A halt decider H is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program that, given a program X with input Y decides,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after a finite number of steps, whether X(Y) halts or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. (H(X,Y) itself must halt after a finite number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps. It must return either 1 if X(Y) halts, or 0 if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> X(Y) does not halt, where 1 and 0 are a convention,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which could also be two other arbitrary values.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and no more)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An alternative definition for a halt decider approved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling book on the theory of computation)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is shown above and paraphrased below:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not aborted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear to me what you want to say and why you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> left out my other points from the quote. You quote only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definitions. You left out the points that follow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the definitions. What does that mean. Don't you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with the definitions, or is something wrong with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the other points?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and no more)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the above seems to agree with my definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider other definitions that do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to simulating halt deciders are irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was not talking about simulating halt deciders, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about halt deciders. Since we seem to agree that they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same, I have to conclude that your contribution is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the same as saying that airplanes do not fly
>>>>>>>>>>>> because cars do not fly and we were talking about cars.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we are talking about cars, it is irrelevant to change the
>>>>>>>>>>> subject to airplanes.
>>>>>>>>>>> But if you think your car is an airplane, it is dangerous to
>>>>>>>>>>> try to fly with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no
>>>>>>>>>> more) If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>> input D until H*
>>>>>>>>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>>>>> running* *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>> D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems to be saying that a simulating halt decider does
>>>>>>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only requirement for a halt decider is that it does
>>>>>>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of its inputs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I started this thread with a question about Halt Deciders. I
>>>>>>>>> included a definition (see above). Why do you keep changing
>>>>>>>>> the subject to things with other definitions? Cars, airplanes,
>>>>>>>>> simulating halt deciders, boats, automobiles? Please, stay at
>>>>>>>>> the subject.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above quote seems to say that a simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>> does correctly determine the halt status of the input that it
>>>>>>>> simulates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser is the author of the best selling book on the
>>>>>>>> theory of computation would seem to have the knowledge required
>>>>>>>> to approve alternative definitions for halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only the notion of a simulating halt decider defeats the
>>>>>>>> conventional HP proofs. To insist on definitions that cannot
>>>>>>>> defeat these proofs seems a little silly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, your contribution is irrelevant, because you want to change
>>>>>>> definitions and you cannot show any error in the 9 points I was
>>>>>>> asking about.
>>>>>>> Don't change the subject, please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>>>>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>>>>>> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or
>>>>>> continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
>>>>>> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
>>>>>> program-input pairs cannot exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its
>>>>>> own source and its input to H and then specifically do the
>>>>>> opposite of what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that
>>>>>> handles this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H(D,D) correctly simulates its input D until H correctly
>>>>>> determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless
>>>>>> aborted thus exactly matching the Wikipedia definition of an H
>>>>>> can that handles this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your H returns 0, but D halts. Again you changed the subject.
>>>>
>>>> You continue to look for a black dog in the kitchen by looking for
>>>> a white cat in the living room because you only understand these
>>>> things on the basis of learned-by-rote.
>>>>
>>>> That the behavior of the input D correctly simulated by H is
>>>> validated as the correct basis for a halt status decision prevents
>>>> anyone from correctly disagreeing with this basis within this
>>>> validated basis.
>>>
>>> If D(D) halts then H(D,D) should return a decision of halts (1).
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> One would think so until one looked at all of the details.
>
> If D(D) halts then H(D,D) should return a decision of halts (1).
>
> /Flibble
>

On 2022-10-21 14:12:21 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/21/2022 8:59 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>> If D(D) halts then H(D,D) should return a decision of halts (1).

> One would think so until one looked at all of the details.

The relevant detail here is that if D(D) halts and H(D,D) says "no"
then H is not a halt decider.

Mikko

On 10/22/2022 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-10-21 14:12:21 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 10/21/2022 8:59 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>>> If D(D) halts then H(D,D) should return a decision of halts (1).
>
>> One would think so until one looked at all of the details.
>
> The relevant detail here is that if D(D) halts and H(D,D) says "no"
> then H is not a halt decider.
>
> Mikko
>

Professor Sipser seems to disagree.
An execution trace of the D simulated by H also disagrees.
By ignoring these details one simply remains ignorant.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/22/2022 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-10-21 14:12:21 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 10/21/2022 8:59 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>>> If D(D) halts then H(D,D) should return a decision of halts (1).
>
>> One would think so until one looked at all of the details.
>
> The relevant detail here is that if D(D) halts and H(D,D) says "no"
> then H is not a halt decider.
>
> Mikko
>

Professor Sipser seems to disagree because an execution trace of the D
simulated by H would never stop running unless its simulation has been
aborted. By ignoring these details one simply remains ignorant.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2022-10-22 12:24:23 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/22/2022 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-10-21 14:12:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2022 8:59 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>
>>>> If D(D) halts then H(D,D) should return a decision of halts (1).
>>
>>> One would think so until one looked at all of the details.
>>
>> The relevant detail here is that if D(D) halts and H(D,D) says "no"
>> then H is not a halt decider.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> Professor Sipser seems to disagree because an execution trace of the
> D simulated by H would never stop running unless its simulation has
> been aborted. By ignoring these details one simply remains ignorant.

It may seem so if one ovelooks important details. When one considers
those details one can see that he doesn't disagree.

Mikko