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

On 5/14/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 4:25 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)

>
*NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC*
<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
>

>
That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>

>
If that was actually true then you could provide an
alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.

>
That Ben relayed a statement saying explicitly that is proof enough.
>

>
There is NO SUCH THING as proof enough.
That is not the way that any actual proof really works.

 If Ben said that Sipser told him he doesn't agree with what you said, that is conclusive proof.
 

You can't even pay attention to the exact words
that Ben actually said.
When we correctly paraprhase the words that Ben
said it is this: Professor Sipser did not notice
any significance to the exact words that he did
agree to.
<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>
Ben understood what those words exactly mean and did
agree that my code does meet the spec of the first part.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
Ben also thought that I tricked Professor Sipser into
agreeing with those words. He thought that Professor
Sipser made a mistake. Its all in the record on comp.theory
back in 2022.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer