On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's
>>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my
>>>>> copy to check it out.
>>>>
>>>> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that.  His two
>>>> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
>>>> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way.
>>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
>>>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas.  However, H(P,P)
>>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
>>>>
>>> If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0  No-Matter-What
>>
>> But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
>> that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
>
> Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
>
> H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem

Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.

> -- the
> one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but D(D)
> would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly
> determine this silly criterion (in this one case) so H is a POOH decider

Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.

> (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
> is also undecidable in general).

I am only showing that a simulating halt decider defeats all of the
conventional halting problem proofs. I am not showing that is solves the
halting problem.

>> The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does it, and
>> since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D will halt.
>
> Right, but that's not the criterion that PO is using, is it? I don't
> get what the problem is. Ever since the "line 15 commented out"
> debacle, PO has been pulling the same trick: "D(D) only halts
> because..." was one way he used to put it before finding a more tricky
> wording. For years, the project has simply been to find words he can
> dupe people with.
>

Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.

This would mean that a simulating halt decider does apply to the actual
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

On 10/17/22 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's
>>>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't
>>>>>> find my
>>>>>> copy to check it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that.  His two
>>>>> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
>>>>> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way.
>>>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
>>>>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas.  However,
>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
>>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0  No-Matter-What
>>>
>>> But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
>>> that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
>>
>> Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
>>
>> H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem
>
> Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
> correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
> correctly simulated by H.
>
>> -- the
>> one no one cares about.  D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but D(D)
>> would not halt unless H stops the simulation.  H /can/ correctly
>> determine this silly criterion (in this one case) so H is a POOH decider
>
> Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
> correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
> correctly simulated by H.

Right, and that correct simulation, to BE correct, needs to duplicte the
behavior of D(), which for this H is to return 1.

So, you don't have a correct simulation to use,

>
>> (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
>> is also undecidable in general).
>
> I am only showing that a simulating halt decider defeats all of the
> conventional halting problem proofs. I am not showing that is solves the
> halting problem.

No, you are showing that you don't understand what you are saying.

>
>>> The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does it, and
>>> since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D will halt.
>>
>> Right, but that's not the criterion that PO is using, is it?  I don't
>> get what the problem is.  Ever since the "line 15 commented out"
>> debacle, PO has been pulling the same trick: "D(D) only halts
>> because..." was one way he used to put it before finding a more tricky
>> wording.  For years, the project has simply been to find words he can
>> dupe people with.
>>
>
> Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
> correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
> correctly simulated by H.
>
> This would mean that a simulating halt decider does apply to the actual
> halting problem proofs.
>

Yes, but STILL Need to answer based on the ACTUAL behavior of the
machine, since that is what a CORRECT simulation will show.

Since you H doesn't do that, it isn't correct.

FAIL.