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

On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/12/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/12/25 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:

Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
by Michael Sipser (Author)
4.4 out of 5 stars    568 rating
>
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael- Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>
int DD()
  {
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
  }
>
DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
that this criteria has been met:
>
<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>
>

>
Which your H doesn't do, as it can not correctly determine what doesn't happen.
>

>
Any C programmer can correctly tell what doesn't happen.
What doesn't happen is DD reaching its "return" statement
final halt state.
>

>
Sure they can, since that is the truth, as explained.
>
Since your "logic" is based on lies and equivocation,

 If my logic was based on lies and equivocation
then you could provide actual reasoning that
corrects my errors.

I hae.

 It is truism that simulating termination analyzers
must report on the behavior of their input as if
they themselves never aborted this simulation:

Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include all their code, and that code is what is actually there, not created by this imaginary operation.
Thus, a HHH that aborts to return an answer, when looking at the DDD that calls it, must look at the unaborted emulation of THAT DDD, that calls the HHH that DOES abort and return an answer, as that is what the PROGRAM DDD is, If you can not create the HHH that does that without changing that input, that is a flaw in your system, not the problem.

 *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
or they themselves could become non-terminating.

But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original was given.
You changed it by changing the code of the H that was part of them, and thus INVALDIATED your reasoning.
Sorry, you don't get to LIE about the system.
You don't get to LIE about what the input is.

 A rebuttal must take the form of another criteria
that prevents the simulating termination analyzer
from becoming non-terminating.

Why?
The rebutall is that the answer it gave was wrong.
The analyser beconing non-halting is proof enough that that design was wrong,
It seems you don't understand the first part of the problem, that *YOU* need to fully define the decider that you are going to claim is correct. "Be correct" is not an instruction in the programing language, no matter how much you wish it was.
And that is why Tarski is uninteligable to you, you just ASSUME that the "get it right" operation exists, and depend on it, not knowing it was built is a unlicensed facility to the lowest bidder, and doesn't actually have the parts it claims it does.
That is the nature of your lies.

 The lame rebuttals that I have been getting are
all of the form: "that is not the way that I memorized it."
>

No, it isn't the way it is DEFINED.
You got lucky when the judge didn't throw you in jail for the kiddie porn. That didn't make what you did there right,
The fact that you just refuse to follow the rules will seal your fate when you come before the final judge.
Sorry, but all you are doing is sinking yourself into oblivion.