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

On 5/14/2025 3:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 2:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

joes <noreply@example.org> writes:
>

Am Wed, 14 May 2025 10:06:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/14/2025 3:17 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 21:43:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 8:58 PM, dbush wrote:

>

I have the emails where he agreed that I could publish his agreement
with those exact words. Ben also checked this and verified it.

>
Please publish those instead of paraphrasing.
>

He agreed that I could publish this.
Ben checked with him at the time.

>
Ok so you don't have mails. Ben does.

>
Just to be clear, I did not "check" anything with Sipser.  I alerted him
to the fact that his agreement to a deceptively worded sentence was
being used in public.  Prof Sipser does not agree with PO's wacky ideas.
>

 That is an incorrect paraphrase of the actual truth.
Professor Sipser DID agree with these verbatim words.
 <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>
 

And *yet again* you lie by implying Sipser agrees with your interpretation of the above when definitive proof has been repeatedly provided that he did not:
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.
On 5/14/2025 3:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > Just to be clear, I did not "check" anything with Sipser.  I alerted him
 > to the fact that his agreement to a deceptively worded sentence was
 > being used in public.  Prof Sipser does not agree with PO's wacky ideas.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.