Does D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
-
Two people each with masters degrees in computer science have confirmed that D correctly simulated by H cannot possible terminate normally. MIT Professor Michael Sipser1 agreed that the following verbatim paragraph is correct: 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. He has also agreed that I can quote him on this. He has only agreed to the above word-for-word paragraph. He has not agreed with anything else. 1 author of the best selling book on the theory of computation Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
polcott wrote:
Two people each with masters degrees in computer science
And a heart surgeon promotes homeopathic remedies. So thus those must work?
polcott wrote:
He has also agreed that I can quote him on this.
If you are already convinced then why are you posting here?
-
This is the 12th article that I have written up in the last two years: Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs
polcott wrote:
This is the 12th article
I don't care. There are probably thousands of articles promoting cow urine as a cure for cancer and MBA's in India are presumably producing papers all the time on Astrology since that is a degree program in multiple universities. What I said was that you should get published in a formal mathematics journal. At a minimal such a journal must not be 'pay per publish'.
-
"You are using an example which has a very specific context - the Turing Machine." Not at all. The code that I wrote is very clearly written in C. I am only asking a straight forward software engineering question about a pair of C functions. Asking about the computer science implied by my question is clearly beyond the scope of this site so I am not asking about that.
polcott wrote:
Not at all. The code that I wrote is very clearly written in C.
Sigh...again.... The example code originates from Turning Machine math. If you want to prove something OUTSIDE of the Turing Machine then you must formally define the context then provide the proof from that. Nothing you have posted here comes even close to be a formal proof. And I am certainly not going to review anything you have posted elsewhere.
-
polcott wrote:
The following code is executed in the x86utm operating system based...
No. You are redefining the problem and then ignoring it when people call it out. That program specfically represents a problem that was proven mathematically long ago using the Turing machine. If you want to prove something then you will need to actually provide the same rigor that Turing did. You have not done so.
polcott wrote:
calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
You are ignoring that in the proof H() must be defined for ALL POSSIBLE CASES. You do not get to pick and choose what H() does.
polcott wrote:
Here is an example of work in this same field:
First what journal was that published in? I can find references to the article but not anything that I see as a journal. But as I read the paper it does not really support anything that you are saying. That paper has one specific example. And in fact seems more like an attempt to prove something about a different idiom under test - the "TSR". The paper provides exactly what they did in detail. So I suggest that you answer your own question by applying exactly what they did in the paper to the code that you provided above.
TRhankls this information https://pubfonts.com[^]