<Sipser approved abstract>
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):

If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</Sipser approved abstract>

to this paper:

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on page
3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the technical
details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness of page 3.

The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the C
calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.

Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the Peter
Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the embedded
copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly construed as
specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.

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

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:16:48 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> <Sipser approved abstract>
> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
> paper):
>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </Sipser approved abstract>
>
> to this paper:
>
> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>
> The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
> correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on
> page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the
> technical details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness
> of page 3.
>
> The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
> programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the
> C calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.
>
> Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the
> Peter Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the
> embedded copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly
> construed as specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.

You have been told multiple times now that you are not doing a correct
simulation of D so it doesn't matter what Sipser says.

The correct simulation of D by H is D behaving as if there was a
direction execution of D(D).

/Flibble

On 10/16/2022 10:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:16:48 -0500
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <Sipser approved abstract>
>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
>> paper):
>>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </Sipser approved abstract>
>>
>> to this paper:
>>
>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>
>> The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
>> correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on
>> page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the
>> technical details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness
>> of page 3.
>>
>> The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
>> programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the
>> C calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.
>>
>> Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the
>> Peter Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the
>> embedded copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly
>> construed as specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> You have been told multiple times now that you are not doing a correct
> simulation of D

By people not having the technical competence (see above technical
prerequisites) to verify that this simulation is correct.

--
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 10/16/2022 11:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> <Sipser approved abstract>
>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </Sipser approved abstract>
>>
>> to this paper:
>>
>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>
>> The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
>> correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on
>> page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the
>> technical details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness
>> of page 3.
>>
>> The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
>> programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the C
>> calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.
>>
>> Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the Peter
>> Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the embedded
>> copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly construed as
>> specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>
> You logic is incorrect as heen pointed out many times.
>
Like I said my reasoning on page 3 only applies to people having
sufficient technical competence (apparently not you).

Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
[000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
[000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
[000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped

We can see that the first seven instructions of Sipser_D simulated by
Sipser_H precisely match the first seven instructions of the x86
source-code of Sipser_D. This conclusively proves that these
instructions were simulated correctly.

Anyone sufficiently technically competent in the x86 programming
language will agree that the above execution trace of Sipser_D simulated
by Sipser_H shows that Sipser_D will never stop running unless Sipser_H
aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.

--
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 10/16/22 1:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/16/2022 11:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/16/22 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> <Sipser approved abstract>
>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </Sipser approved abstract>
>>>
>>> to this paper:
>>>
>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>
>>> The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
>>> correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on
>>> page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the
>>> technical details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness
>>> of page 3.
>>>
>>> The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
>>> programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the
>>> C calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.
>>>
>>> Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the
>>> Peter Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the
>>> embedded copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly
>>> construed as specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>
>> You logic is incorrect as heen pointed out many times.
>>
> Like I said my reasoning on page 3 only applies to people having
> sufficient technical competence (apparently not you).

WHich is a false claim.

There is nothing in the arguement that actually requires that.

The fact that you mention it almost implies that you don't really have
the expertise to understand what you are talking about.

>
> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>  address   address   data      code       language
>  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55         push ebp      // Begin Sipser_D
> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50         push eax      // push Sipser_D
> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51         push ecx      // push Sipser_D
> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> We can see that the first seven instructions of Sipser_D simulated by
> Sipser_H precisely match the first seven instructions of the x86
> source-code of Sipser_D. This conclusively proves that these
> instructions were simulated correctly.

Right, so it is a correct PARTIAL simulation.

>
> Anyone sufficiently technically competent in the x86 programming
> language will agree that the above execution trace of Sipser_D simulated
> by Sipser_H shows that Sipser_D will never stop running unless Sipser_H
> aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
>
>

Not in the sense required by the problem.

Since the Sipser_H being called WILL abort it simulation of the next
level of procesing of simulating another copy of Sipser_D, and return 0,
it is clear that the current simulating Sipser_H doesn't NEED to abort
the simulation to keep if from being non-halting, it only needs to abort
is as that is the code it contains.

By your logic EVERY loop is non-halting, because it only stops because
it decides to stop.

You are just showing your total lack of understanding of the topic.

The fact that you only "rebuttal" is to just repeat your falsehood and
claim that I "obviously" don't understand what you are saying, is
showing that what you are saying doesn't actually have a factual basis
to work on.

Factual statements generally can be reduced to simpler more basic terms
until you reach things so elementary they are of the form that are
generally accepted as true by the wide audience.

FALSEHOOD resist this treatment, as breaking them down to simpler terms
just reveals the falsehood more directly.

You inability to reduce your arguement a level says that it isn't based
on real truth, but lies. (Or at least you don't understand the truth
behind it, but since it is shown wrong, that isn't the case).

On 10/17/2022 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/16/22 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2022 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/16/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2022 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/22 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2022 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/22 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2022 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <Sipser approved abstract>
>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything
>>>>>>>>> else in this paper):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of
>>>>>>>>> D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence
>>>>>>>>> of configurations.
>>>>>>>>> </Sipser approved abstract>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to this paper:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that
>>>>>>>>> this correctly simulated D would never stop running unless
>>>>>>>>> aborted is on page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to
>>>>>>>>> comprehend the technical details of page 3 are unqualified to
>>>>>>>>> assess the correctness of page 3.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of
>>>>>>>>> the C programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language
>>>>>>>>> and how the C calling conventions are implemented in x86
>>>>>>>>> assembly language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to
>>>>>>>>> the Peter Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the embedded copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is
>>>>>>>>> correctly construed as specifying non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>>>>>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55         push ebp     // Begin
>>>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50         push eax      // push
>>>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51         push ecx      // push
>>>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call
>>>>>>>> Sipser_H
>>>>>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation
>>>>>>>> Stopped
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Richard is too dumb to see this
>>>>>>>> If (H never stops D)
>>>>>>>>     D keeps repeating
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that isn't the question, and H DOES stop, so it doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the question that H is correctly answering and you are just
>>>>>> too dumb to see this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you admit you aren't doing the Halting Problem  Because that
>>>>> isn't the question of the Halting Problem.
>>>>
>>>> As Professor Sipser agrees the halt status of D is correctly
>>>> determined by the behavior of D simulated by H, and this D never
>>>> halts even if it does stop running because its simulation was aborted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, he said that *IF* H did a correct simulation, and was able to
>>> *CORRECTLY* determine that the simulation would not stop,
>>
>> unless aborted // you can't skip this
>
> Right, and the correct simulation of THIS input will reach a final state
> if not aborted.
>
I really wish that you would quit dishonestly changing the words. We are
not talking about H reaching its final state.

Every correct simulation of 1 to ∞ steps of D by any H will never reach
the final state of D. The problem may also be that you can't understand
the proof of this on page 3.

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/22 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/16/22 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2022 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/22 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2022 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/22 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/2022 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/16/22 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2022 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <Sipser approved abstract>
>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything
>>>>>>>>>> else in this paper):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>> D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence
>>>>>>>>>> of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>> </Sipser approved abstract>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to this paper:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that
>>>>>>>>>> this correctly simulated D would never stop running unless
>>>>>>>>>> aborted is on page 3 of the above paper. People that fail to
>>>>>>>>>> comprehend the technical details of page 3 are unqualified to
>>>>>>>>>> assess the correctness of page 3.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of
>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language
>>>>>>>>>> and how the C calling conventions are implemented in x86
>>>>>>>>>> assembly language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to
>>>>>>>>>> the Peter Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the embedded copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is
>>>>>>>>>> correctly construed as specifying non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>>>>>>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>>>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55         push ebp     // Begin
>>>>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50         push eax      // push
>>>>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51         push ecx      // push
>>>>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call
>>>>>>>>> Sipser_H
>>>>>>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation
>>>>>>>>> Stopped
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Richard is too dumb to see this
>>>>>>>>> If (H never stops D)
>>>>>>>>>     D keeps repeating
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that isn't the question, and H DOES stop, so it doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is the question that H is correctly answering and you are just
>>>>>>> too dumb to see this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you admit you aren't doing the Halting Problem  Because that
>>>>>> isn't the question of the Halting Problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Professor Sipser agrees the halt status of D is correctly
>>>>> determined by the behavior of D simulated by H, and this D never
>>>>> halts even if it does stop running because its simulation was aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, he said that *IF* H did a correct simulation, and was able to
>>>> *CORRECTLY* determine that the simulation would not stop,
>>>
>>> unless aborted // you can't skip this
>>
>> Right, and the correct simulation of THIS input will reach a final
>> state if not aborted.
>>
> I really wish that you would quit dishonestly changing the words. We are
> not talking about H reaching its final state.

Neither am I.

>
> Every correct simulation of 1 to ∞ steps of D by any H will never reach
> the final state of D. The problem may also be that you can't understand
> the proof of this on page 3.
>

But we only care about the COMPELTE simulation of THIS input, which is
based on a D that calls the H that aborts it simulation and returns 0.

NONE of the H that do a complete simulation did it on this input, but
only on H's that don't abort their simulations.

You logic is just wrong.

You are just showing their stupidity.

> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>