Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH

On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>>

Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was
to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to.
PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or
ackowledges the statement.  I suggest that perhaps it's actually
a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt
detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it
does not support PO's wider claims.  I've seen a lot of time and
bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't
even been quoting correctly).
>
I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light.
I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it.
I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to
analyze the rest of PO's claims.
>

 I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to.  IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words.
 

*THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING*
(I just noticed that today)
You were perfectly correct until you made the
statement that
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input
 > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough
Every HHH is identical except that the outermost
simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole
simulation before the next inner one.
This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts
then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer