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

On 5/16/25 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.

 For 2.5 years the words always said that they
require a partial simulation of non-terminating
inputs and you "interpreted" that as meaning
that non-terminating inputs must be infinitely
simulated.
 Then you based your whole rebuttal on these changed words.
 

No, the word have NEVER meant that the determination of "non-halting" is DEFINED by a partial simulation, that has always been your error, as "non-halting" is DEFINED by an unboundes number of steps.
What it has always meant, is that if the decider can detrimine with a finite number of steps that the unbound simulation of that exact same input would not halt, it is allowed to abort its simulation and return non-halting. Note, the input doesn't change when we imagine the unbounded emulation, and the input includes all of the original code of your D, which includes the H that ends up choosing to abort because it thought (incorrectly) that it had proven non-halting.
Some input can be decided to be non-halting by this definition.
If the system returns to an exact same state as it was previously, it can conclude that the input is non-halting.
You can also make that determination if in the FULL loop of processing, you get back to an instruction you were at before, and NOWHERE in the full loop was a condition, you know that it must continue forever, which handle the case of function E just calling function E unconditionally.]
The problem is that DDD calling HHH to conditionally emulated till it decides (incorrectly) non-halting doesn't meet either of these conditions, and in fact, that unbounded emulation does halt, showing the your decider never had the proof it incorrect assumed it had.