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

Op 14.mei.2025 om 17:40 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2025 6:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.mei.2025 om 06:28 schreef olcott:

On 5/13/2025 10:50 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 11:47 PM, 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:
>

>
I have proven otherwise below:

>
And *yet again* you lie when definitive proof has been repeatedly provided that he did not agree with out:

>
(the words only have one correct meaning)
*UNTIL YOU ADDRESS THESE POINTS THEY WILL BE ENDLESSLY REPEATED*
>
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*
>

>
Repeating false statements do not make them true, even when they are true in your dreams.
It turns out that you do not understand the meaning of the words, such as 'emulated correctly'

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 DDD correctly emulated by HHH means that
HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
 

This only adds evidence to my words that you do not understand the meaning of the words 'correctly emulated'.
Face the facts, not your dreams. Come out of rebuttal mode. Try to think!