Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Most public domain software is free, at least at first glance.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

SubjectAuthor
o Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating haltolcott

1
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

<tijp08$gq2$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9905&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9905

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!/GRMamn3ov7sGOWkEuxPQw.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: none...@beez-waxes.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt
decider
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:31:36 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <tijp08$gq2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <ti6o0g$1fj1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87leplkn16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tiindo$3cg9h$1@dont-email.me>
<b344e9ec-ccfc-4bd0-ad53-4dfb3aee193bn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="17218"; posting-host="/GRMamn3ov7sGOWkEuxPQw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.3.3
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: olcott - Mon, 17 Oct 2022 14:31 UTC

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.

*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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor