Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

41 views
Skip to first unread message

olcott

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 11:08:38 AM10/12/22
to
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks
correct:

If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?

This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
paper.

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof


Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
presented to him.

*The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*


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

olcott

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 12:48:29 PM10/12/22
to
On 10/12/2022 10:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>> looks correct:
>>
>>     If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>     of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>     correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>
>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in
>> this paper.
>>
>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>
>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>> presented to him.
>>
>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>
>>
>
> And what does he say about:
>
>      If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>      of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>      correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>

Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks
correct:

If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?

This validates that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H is the
correct behavior that H must report on, thus affirming that the notion
of a simulating halt decider is correct.

Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip

Ordinary software engineering verifies the simulation of Sipser_D by
Sipser_H is correct. Ordinary software engineering also verifies that
Sipser_H does correctly determine that Sipser_D is stuck in what would
otherwise be infinitely recursive simulation unless H aborts its
simulation of Sipser_D.

As can be seen from the above quote Professor Sipser has agreed that
this would be the correct basis for Sipser_H to report that Sipser_D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

olcott

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 1:04:48 PM10/12/22
to
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> writes:
>
>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct:
>>>    If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>    of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>    correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
>>> paper.
>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>> presented to him.
>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>
>>
>> And what does he say about:
>
> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>
>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>
> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H
> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P)
> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
> computation.
>

Professor Sipser essentially validates the same notion of a simulating
halt decider that I have had all along:

When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that its
correct simulation of its input D would never stop running unless
aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its simulation of D and
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

<quoted email>
Professor Sipser:

Here is what I would like to say:

Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks
correct:

If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?

This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
paper.

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof


Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
presented to him.
</quoted email>

<quoted reply>
Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
</quoted reply>

Mr Flibble

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 1:25:16 PM10/12/22
to
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:08:20 -0500
olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
> looks correct:
>
> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>
> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in
> this paper.
>
> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>
>
> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
> presented to him.
>
> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*

Whilst the paragraph you sent to Sipser is correct the crucial detail
that you are glossing over is that you do NOT perform a correct
simulation for all inputs:

void Px(void (*x)())
{
(void) H(x, x);
return;
}

The correct simulation of Px above is to simulate Px halting.

Sipser confirms that the Flibble Signaling Halt Decider (TM) is a
solution however it does not confirm that the Olcott Simulation
Detector is a valid halt decider.

/Flibble


olcott

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 1:38:52 PM10/12/22
to
On 10/12/2022 12:24 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:08:20 -0500
> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>> looks correct:
>>
>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>
>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in
>> this paper.
>>
>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>
>>
>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>> presented to him.
>>
>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>
> Whilst the paragraph you sent to Sipser is correct the crucial detail
> that you are glossing over is that you do NOT perform a correct
> simulation for all inputs:
>

Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip

Anyone with sufficient software engineering skill can easily verify that
Sipser_D is correctly simulated by Sipser_H and that Sipser_D remains
stuck in infinitely recursive simulation unless and until Sipser_H
aborts its correct simulation of Sipser_D.

Mr Flibble

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 1:52:55 PM10/12/22
to
You chose to not fully address my reply by snipping the important part
so I will give you another chance:

Whilst the paragraph you sent to Sipser is correct the crucial detail
that you are glossing over is that you do NOT perform a correct
simulation for all inputs:

olcott

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 2:04:50 PM10/12/22
to
Not at all. It must be a correct simulation of the actual input by the
simulating halt decider.

int main() { H(Px,Px); }
(a) The executed H simulates Px that calls a simulated H
(b) that simulates Px that calls a simulated H
(c) that simulates Px that calls a simulated H ...

Mr Flibble

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 2:08:02 PM10/12/22
to
Yes indeed it must be a correct simulation and a correct simulation of
Px is to simulate Px halting.

/Flibble

olcott

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 2:25:51 PM10/12/22
to
Sipser agreed that the correct simulation of Px by H is the correct
measure of the behavior of Px.

When we look at the above execution trace of: int main() { H(Px,Px); }
We see that Px remains stuck in recursive simulation until H aborts this
simulation.

Mr Flibble

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 2:31:19 PM10/12/22
to
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:25:34 -0500
Of course he did but you don't do a correct simulation of Px: a
correct simulation of Px is to simulate Px halting as that is how Px
behaves.

/Flibble

olcott

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 3:17:52 PM10/12/22
to
A correct simulation of Px by H derives the execution trace that I
specified. Every line of the execution trace of the x86 emulation of Px
by H precisely corresponds to exactly what the x86 source code of Px
specifies.

void Px(void (*x)())
{
(void) H(x, x);
return;
}

int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(Px, Px));
}

_Px()
[00001256] 55 push ebp
[00001257] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001259] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000125c] 50 push eax // push 2nd arg to H
[0000125d] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001260] 51 push ecx // push 1st arg to H
[00001261] e8b0fcffff call 00000f16 // call H
[00001266] 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001269] 5d pop ebp
[0000126a] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [0000126a]

H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fcb
Address_of_H:f16
[00001256][00111fb7][00111fbb] 55 push ebp
[00001257][00111fb7][00111fbb] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001259][00111fb7][00111fbb] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000125c][00111fb3][00001256] 50 push eax // push Px
[0000125d][00111fb3][00001256] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001260][00111faf][00001256] 51 push ecx // push Px
[00001261][00111fab][00001266] e8b0fcffff call 00000f16 // call H
H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped

We can see that the execution trace of the first six instructions of Px
exactly matches the x86 source-code of Px. We can also see that Px was
about to call H(Px,Px) again and this would repeat the cycle of the
first six instructions of Px.

Mr Flibble

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 3:26:20 PM10/12/22
to
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:17:35 -0500
There are various methods of simulating an input: you have chosen an
incorrect method of simulation; if we substitute your H for another H
which uses a correct method of simulation, Px will correctly halt.

An SHD which uses a correct method of simulation would be the Flibble
Signaling Halt Decider (TM).

/Flibble

olcott

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 3:32:59 PM10/12/22
to
Everyone that is sufficiently technically competent at software
engineering can verify that H does correctly simulate Px on the basis
that the line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of Px by H
exactly matches the line-by-line x86 source-code of Px.

People that are not sufficiently technically competent might use
double-talk, misdirection and vagueness to provide a baseless rebuttal.

Mr Flibble

unread,
Oct 12, 2022, 3:50:22 PM10/12/22
to
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:32:41 -0500
A valid halt decider MUST return a decision to its caller, in this case
Px, in finite time; Px will then halt, correctly. Your H does not do
this so is not a valid halt decider.

/Flibble

olcott

unread,
Oct 20, 2022, 11:17:41 PM10/20/22
to
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Ric...@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 <j...@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
> (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.
>

I will keep posting this every day reminding people that 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.

until someone like Andre gives me an accurate review of this paper.

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

olcott

unread,
Oct 21, 2022, 4:03:45 PM10/21/22
to
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Ric...@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 <j...@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.

Paul N

unread,
Oct 22, 2022, 8:19:32 AM10/22/22
to
For those who don't follow comp.theory, I think it is worth pointing out that Ben is trying to deal with PO by encouraging no-one to reply to him. This probably explains the posts here claiming that "Ben agrees" with things it's quite clear he does not agree with, either because PO thinks he can get away with it or to try to tempt Ben back into replying.

olcott

unread,
Oct 22, 2022, 3:20:23 PM10/22/22
to
On 10/22/2022 7:19 AM, Paul N wrote:
> For those who don't follow comp.theory, I think it is worth pointing out that Ben is trying to deal with PO by encouraging no-one to reply to him. This probably explains the posts here claiming that "Ben agrees" with things it's quite clear he does not agree with,

*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*

These references are on comp.theory:

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)

*This is the "silly" criterion that Ben is referring to*

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.
>


olcott

unread,
Oct 22, 2022, 6:10:42 PM10/22/22
to
On 10/22/2022 7:19 AM, Paul N wrote:
> For those who don't follow comp.theory, I think it is worth pointing out that Ben is trying to deal with PO by encouraging no-one to reply to him. This probably explains the posts here claiming that "Ben agrees" with things it's quite clear he does not agree with,

*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*

These references are on comp.theory:

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)

*This is the "silly" criterion that Ben is referring to*

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.
>

0 new messages