On 10/23/2022 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> Ordinary code analysis proves that H(D,D)==0 according to its criterion.
> I have a friend with a masters degree in computer science that agreed to
> this after a 75 minute phone discussion carefully analyzing the first
> three pages of my paper. He also immediately agreed with the Sipser
> approved criterion with no discussion needed.
>
> Original message:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/YmACFEiAoNk/m/wujVvKPvAAAJ
>
> 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:
> >>> 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?
> >
>
> <Sipser Approved Verbatim Abstract>
> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>
> 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.
> </Sipser Approved Verbatim Abstract>
>
> *to this paper: Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>
>
> > 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)
>
>
> This is the criterion that Ben erased from his reply:
> On 10/17/2022 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> > *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.
>
>
> > so H is a POOH decider (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
> > 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.
> >
>
> *It is implausible that professor Sipser could be duped*
> *into approving an abstract to a paper with this title*
> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>

I emailed Ben a copy of this and invited him to make a rebuttal.
Since he responded to my first email I know that it reached him.

I am sure that he knows there is no correct rebuttal and that is his
reason for not responding.

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