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

On 5/13/25 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 1:17 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>
>

 People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
 People tried to get away with saying that HHH
cannot not decide halting on the basis of
*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
 People tried to get away with saying that the correct
emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
*H correctly simulates its input D until*
 

Right, "Correct Simulations" can never be partial.
Partial Simulations can be partial.
Deciders can use Partial Simulations, if they do it correctly.
But to do so, they need to show that the ACTUAL CORRECT SIMULATION of this EXACT input, which needs to represent a PROGRAM, would never halt.
Since your DDD as defined isn't a program, you just error out on a category error.
If we fix that by including HHH into the code, then your HHH errors out by not correctly determining what the correct simulation of the exact input (which calls the HHH that does the abort, since that is what you ended up using) which will halt.
All you are doing is just proving that you are nothing but a pathological liar that doesn't know, and can't learn, the meaning of the words you use.
Sorry, but you have sunk your own battleship by basing your "logic" on your lies, and refusing to learn the meaning of the words you use.