[continued from previous message]   
      
    > work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he   
    > agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean!  My own take if that he   
    > (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases,   
    > i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine   
    > it's halting or otherwise.  We all know or could construct some such   
    > cases.   
    >   
    > I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without   
    > making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser   
    > uses H and D in at least one of his proofs).  Of course, he is clued in   
    > enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the   
    > "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made   
    > of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue.  But,   
    > personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that,   
    > and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs.  That's   
    > the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of   
    > being disingenuous.   
      
   On 8/23/2024 9:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:   
    > So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case:  what   
    > Sipser understood he was agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as   
    > meaning.  Sipser would not agree that the conclusion applies in PO's   
    > HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts.   
      
   On 5/2/2025 9:16 PM, Mike Terry wrote:   
    > PO is trying to interpret Sipser's quote:   
    >   
    > --- Start Sipser quote   
    >       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.   
    > --- End Sipser quote   
    >   
    > The following interpretation is ok:   
    >   
    >      If H is given input D, and while simulating D gathers enough   
    >      information to deduce that UTM(D) would never halt, then   
    >      H can abort its simulation and decide D never halts.   
    >   
    > I'd say it's obvious that this is what Sipser is saying, because it's   
    > natural, correct, and relevant to what was being discussed (valid   
    > strategy for a simulating halt decider).  It is trivial to check that   
    > what my interpretation says is valid:   
    >   
    >     if UTM(D) would never halt, then D never halts, so if H(D) returns   
    >     never_halts then that is the correct answer for the input.  QED  :)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)