Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake

On 5/16/25 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 3:06 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.mei.2025 om 07:29 schreef olcott:

*Not at all. I am following these exact words*
<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>
>
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
Shows exactly how to implement those words to implement
a correct Simulating Termination Analyzer. Mike provides
a complete example of how this works.
>
>

>
>
Sipser agreed to a vacuous statement, because the condition 'correctly simulates' was not met.

 And by this you mean that when the spec requires
a partial simulation
 *until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
 You "interpret" this to mean that it must
infinitely simulate non-terminating inputs.

Which means, as I explained else, if H, after doing a partial simulation, can determine that a COMPLETE simulation of this exact input would be non-halting, it can abort.
This doesn't mean imagine the machine, and any copies of it having been changed, but the behavior of this exact input (which represents a program, and thus has all the code use, so of the "pathological" program, the code of the decider that claimes to be right), and thus, for our D, that simulation DOES HALT, since the code DOES abort its internal simulation and return 0 to D, and thus it halts.

 

In addition, apparently you do not understand what I said, because you do not bring anything against it.

 I only address one point at a time because I found
that almost all of my reviewers get totally confused
even on one single point.
 

Som when are you going to actually address any of them?
It seems you are just showing you can't even count to 1, maybe that is why you think all the numbers are the same, the only number you understand is zero.