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

--
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 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?

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?
>

you may not get anymore clarity from him. Separation of functions, I/Os, and variables, is a first step in clarifying the problem.
your 1 and 2 above are good initial starts, but no feedback from him. So perhaps he is not used to working in SW groups, or confused, or likes problem
definition to remain obscure.

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.

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.

--
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 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 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 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.

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
>