Do you agree with professor Sipser or the many dozens of people that
reject the notion of a simulating halt decider?
Disagreement requires that an error with (a) or (b) or (c) exists
or that (d) is not a necessary consequence of (a)(b)(c)
The only rebuttal of my work in thousands of reviews for the last two
years is the rejection of this notion of a simulating halt decider.
*H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines*
*that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
(a) A halt decider must report on the actual behavior specified by its
input.
(b) The definition of a universal Turing machine (UTM) specifies that
the correct simulation of a machine description provides the actual
behavior specified by this machine description.
(c) A correctly simulated input that would never stop running unless
aborted does specify non-halting behavior.
(d) Therefore a simulating halt decider does correctly determine the
halt status of its input.
void D(void (*x)())
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
}
Once this notion is accepted then the fact that H correctly determines
the halt status of D is verified entirely on the basis of software
engineering.
MIT Professor Michael Sipser specifically approved this verbatim
definition as the abstract to this paper. (He neither reviewed nor
approved anything else).
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.
*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