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

On 5/14/25 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:

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:

>

Then maybe you should stop implying that Sipser agrees with the above
when it's been proven on multiple occasions that he has not.
*That* is dishonest.
>

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.
 <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 since you have admitted that your DDD is not a program, them you can't satisfy that requirement, since in the above D *IS* a program.
Sorry, you admitted that your system doesn't qualify.