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

On 5/23/2025 5:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 21.mei.2025 om 21:40 schreef olcott:

On 5/21/2025 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 21.mei.2025 om 17:33 schreef olcott:

On 5/21/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-20 14:37:40 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/20/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-20 04:20:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

<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
>
Do you understand that we are only evaluating whether
or not HHH/DDD meets this above criteria?

>
I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned
in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious consequence
of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.

>
*H correctly simulates its input D until*
specifies that HHH must simulate DDD according
to the meaning of the rules of the x86 language.

>
The words Sipser agreed to do not refer to that specification, and
is irrelevant to the fact that the meaning of the behaviour, if
there is any, isn't referred there, either.
>

>
Sure they do. There is only a single measure of
*H correctly simulates its input D*
When the language of D is the x86 language.
>

>
And that is not the measure of a partial simulation that misses the part where the input specifies the abort and halts.

>
Because you are incompetent at software engineering
you are clueless about the idea of unreachable code.
>

  Only irrelevant ad hominem attacks.

*unreachable code*
*unreachable code*
*unreachable code*
*unreachable code*

Not rebuttal. So, it seems you understand that that is not the measure of a partial simulation that misses the part where the input specifies a halting behaviour.

The halting behavior is *unreachable code*
The halting behavior is *unreachable code*
The halting behavior is *unreachable code*

That HHH has a bug

Your lack of technical competence is not my bug.
Your lack of technical competence is not my bug.
Your lack of technical competence is not my bug.

that makes that it does not show the behaviour specified in the input (because it aborts before it could reach the verifiable reachable end of the program), does not change the fact that that behaviour *is* specified in the input.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer