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

Op 23.mei.2025 om 19:23 schreef olcott:

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*

Only in your dream. It is a verifiable fact that the input specifies a halting program. Only HHH, die to a bug, does not see that, because it halts the simulation before it can see the halting behaviour specified in the input.

 

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*

Only in your dream there is an infinite recursion. The verifiable fact is that only a finite recursion is specified, because the simulated HHH has code to abort after one recursion.
Try to think! Come out of rebuttal mode. Face the facts, instead of your dream.

 

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.
 

Your bug does not say anything about my competence.
That you do not understand the bug tells a lot about your technical competence.