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

Ben has agreed that Sipser_H does correctly compute the halt status of
Sipser_D according to this criteria:

*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.

*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem

> (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
> is also undecidable in general).
>
>> The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does it, and
>> since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D will halt.
>
> Right, but that's not the criterion that PO is using, is it? I don't

Ben agrees that Richard is evaluating my work using the wrong criteria.

*This is the criteria that I am using*

*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.

> get what the problem is. Ever since the "line 15 commented out"
> debacle, PO has been pulling the same trick: "D(D) only halts
> because..." was one way he used to put it before finding a more tricky
> wording. For years, the project has simply been to find words he can
> dupe people with.
>

Professor Sipser knows these things much deeper than my learned-by-rote
from a textbook reviewers.

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