Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 5/16/25 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 11:08 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 16/05/2025 15:33, olcott wrote:

Mike does not agree that HHH(DD) gets the correct
answer. He does agree that an HHH derived from the
exact meaning of these words is correct:
>
<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>
>

>
Please stop telling other people what you think I agree and do not agree with.  It serves no possible purpose other than as some kind of warped Appeal To Authority.
>
Just argue whatever point you are making in your own words.
>
Mike.
>

 The ultimate measure of truth is the correct reasoning
that you provided showing exactly how a correct SHD
can be derived from the exact meaning of the quoted words.
 You carefully evaluated the exact meaning of the quoted
words and showed how a correct SHD can be derived from
these words. Everyone else changes the words and then
dishonestly rebuts the changed words.
 Everyone else is dishonest with me, yet will not
be dishonest with you.
 

NO, it can't, and that is because you show you don't know the correct meaning for the words, because you beliave your lies about it.
The criteria that ANY Halt Decider must meet, is that it reponse needs to match the behavior of the direct execution of the program that its input represents.
Since the input to HHH is claimed to be DDD, that input must represent the PROGRAM of the code, which includes *ALL* the code that it uses, not just the code you cliam it provides.
Since the execution of that program, for the input that does correspond to an HHH that returns the non-halting answer, as you claim (incorrectly) to be correct, will halt, that answer is just wrong.
That you claim by unsound logic that something else should be true, just shows that your idea of "correct reasoning" is just incorrect.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a blatant pathological liar.