On 10/17/2022 6:59 AM, Paul N wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 5:58:35 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>
>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct:
>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
>>>>> paper.
>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>
>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>
>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>
>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H
>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P)
>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>> computation.
>>>
>>
>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>
> Exactly. Since you are claiming that the answer to "Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?" is "No" and the answer to "Does this input halt?" is "Yes", it's clear you are making a mistake somewhere.

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 below.

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

Would D directly executed by main ever stop running?
is proven to be a different question as the execution trace of the code
below shown in Halt7_Sipser.txt linked below proves.

int Sipser_D(int (*M)())
{ if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
return 0;
return 1;
}

int main()
{ Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
}

*Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project)* Sipser version.
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
(d) The execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is shown in
Halt7_Sipser.txt
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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