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

On 5/12/25 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 9:26 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his
knowledge and use of C.  Yes, it's awful.  He knows very little C and
the code is crap, but that/is/  a straw man -- it's the simplest part of
his argument to fix.

>
Although it was an attempt to motivate him to improve the code, it has become blindingly obvious that he's not interested, which is precisely why I am going to stop bothering.
>

>
Do you really think that nit picky details
can refute the gist of what I am saying
that needs none of these details?

 Since you have yet to show that ANY of your claims are actually making the point you want, you should be looking for small gains.
 

>
int DD()
  {
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
  }

 Which isn't a program that can be simulated until you pair it with the HHH that it calls, and that will be a different program input for each HHH that it pairs with.
 

>
DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
that this criteria has been met:

 So, you can prove that for HHH being a pure simulator, it won't reach the end, but only after creating an input that calls that HHH, and thus can't be decided on by any other HHH that you can think of.
 

>
<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>
>

 Yes, *THAT* HHH is allowed to abort, but only because it doesn't.