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

On 5/16/25 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 10:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 10:33 AM, 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>
>
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
 > is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
 >
 > First you should understand the basic idea behind a
 > "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
 > simulates its input, while observing each simulation
 > step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
 > in the simulation.  A simple (working) example here
 > is an input which goes into a tight loop.
(Mike says much more about this)
>
*Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>
Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>
>

>
If he so agrees with you, why are you arguing with him about what he said?
>

 He made one key big mistake that has nothing to do
with the actual subject matter of this post that
you keep trying to weasel out of.

It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems he understands what he is talking about, but you don't.
He never said you were right with your interpresataion that the partial emulation by HHH DETERMINED that it was correct to stop, he still showed that the full correct simulation of the input, which includes all its code, needs to not ha;t, but it does for your D, at least when you fix the input to be simulatable by including the actual code that D calls (and not the changed code of the UTM that is processing the hypothetical unbounded emulation)

 

It is also clear from the quotes that Mike is NOT agreeing with your stateent, but you just don't understand him.
>