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

On 5/16/25 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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,

 Yes you liar this is what THESE words mean:
*simulates its input D until*
MEANS A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF NON-TERMINATING INPUTS
 

But to be non-terminating, means the UNBOUNED/COMPLETE emulation must OF THIS INPUT must not reach a final state.
Not the input changed to use the hypothetical H as you try to say, but of *THE* input, which MUST have all the original code that D uses, which *IS* the code of the H that does the aborting.
THAT is the meaning of the words you try to change.
But., of course, you have alread admitted that you use of this statement is just a lie, as of course to Professor Sipser, D and H are required to be PROGRAMS, and thus include all the code they use, (as that is all that the Theory talks about) and you have admitted that your H and D are NOT PROGRAMS, and thus your whole argument is LIE based on a catergory error.
So, you CAN'T have meet the criteria, because you don't meet the basic requirements to use it,
Sorry, when you admitted that you sunk your whole argument into that lake of fire that you are headed for if you don't snap out of your self-brainwashing and start actually telling the truth.