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

On 5/14/2025 12:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 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 is not what you thought he agreed to:
>

 

The below is a non-response to the above.  This constitutes your admission that Sipser did not in fact agree with you, and the fact that you trimmed the below proof in your response is your further admission that you intent to continue to lie about it.

  People tried for more than a year to get away with
saying the 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*
 *My reviewers have been dishonest about all of these things*
 

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.