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.
I am interested in the halting problem using a halt decider with the
given definition. I am not interested in your problem.

Considering that:

1) You are unable to understand simple English sentences, such as 'don't
change the subject',
2) You arbitrarily snip relevant and significant parts from your quotations,
3) Your text production seems to be limited to almost only the small
domain of your simulating halt decider,
4) You keep repeating the same paragraphs, sentences, sentence fragments
and words with little variation and with little logic consistency, often
not related to the text your are replying to,

I came to the conclusion that you failed to pass the Turing test for
intelligence.
It seems that your texts are produced by a rather simple piece of
software, which uses a source of a limited set of paragraphs, sentence
fragments and words. This source seems to be updated a few times a year.
The production of texts seems to be triggered by a combination of a
random generator and some keywords in the texts you reply to.

Since I don't like to be fooled in public by a piece of software I have
decided to ignore your contributions, unless some real intelligence is
displayed.