Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point?

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 13:36:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 1:12 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:10:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

 
What are all the other HH?

Still waiting on this.

And Sipser's "criterion" is not at all disputed.

It is not Sipser's criteria it is MY criteria that I spent two years
carefully composing that professor Sipser reviewed and approved.

It shouldn't have taken 2 years.

D is accountable for the behavior of its actual input and not freaking
accountable for any damn thing else in the whole freaking universe.
Halt deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS BASED ON THE
ACTUAL BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES.

And not based on whatever else the simulator might wrongly do with it.

That everyone wants to avoid looking at my conclusive proof that DD
correctly simulated by HH has provably different behavior than the
direct executed DD(DD) is dishonest.

Dishonest is claiming a simulator gets to a different conclusion.

A simulator that simulates something different than the real thing
is not a simulator.

I conclusively prove otherwise and everyone:
(a) Ignores this proof (b) Fails to understand this proof (c) Lies about
the results of this proof.

Even if that part may be right, it is of no use to the halting problem.

Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) we
must first see that the Sipser approved criteria have been met:

I already agreed to it.

--
joes