Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 5/16/2025 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-15 23:43:27 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:

I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting
Problem in that the code that
"does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns"
becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.

>
Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
>

>
In other words you believe that professor Sipser
screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

 One may indeed thik so. Or pehaps he knew what he was doing but cheated.
To sincerely agree with you without extreme care is an error.
 

On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
 > is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
 >
 > First you should understand the basic idea behind a
 > "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
 > simulates its input, while observing each simulation
 > step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
 > in the simulation. A simple (working) example here
 > is an input which goes into a tight loop.
(Mike says much more about this)
*Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer