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

On 5/15/25 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>>

Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was
to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to.
PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or
ackowledges the statement.  I suggest that perhaps it's actually
a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt
detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it
does not support PO's wider claims.  I've seen a lot of time and
bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't
even been quoting correctly).
>
I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light.
I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it.
I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to
analyze the rest of PO's claims.
>

>
I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to. IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words.
>

>
*THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING*
(I just noticed that today)
>
You were perfectly correct until you made the
statement that
>
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input
 > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough
>
Every HHH is identical except that the outermost
simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole
simulation before the next inner one.
>
This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts
then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait.
>

>
I have already gone over this 150 times in the last
three years.
>

>
And it has been refuted nearly as many times, and the refutations IGNORED, showing you have run out of ways to hide your error.
>

 It has never been refuted because it is inherently true.

Sure it has, yoiu are just too stupid to understand.
How many times have I given you the reason, and why haven't you shown the error in my argument (other than just saying I am wrong).
Note, I have broken done my proof into smaller well defined steps, you just repeat your ill-defined words, because you can't go finer without making your lies obvious.

 

You just don't understand what the "behavior" of the input means,

 The exact sequence of steps dumbo.

Right, of the FULL interpretation of its code, which doesn't mean the partial emulation done by the particual HHH, but the FULL emulation of the EXACT CODE present with that HHH, which HALTS.

 

because you just belive your own lies, rather than the actual definative definitions, because you can't stand rules.

 It is simple software engineering that is just beyond you skill level.
 

Nope, you are just using your lies that a partial trace shows information about code it never saw.
Tell me, does this program halts:
int foo() {
   while( bar()) continue;
   return 0;
}
That is the full input describing foo, just as your DDD is the full input describing DDD.
If your logic claims it can deduce what DDD() does, it should be able to deduce what foo() does