Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer

Op 18.mei.2025 om 02:00 schreef olcott:

On 5/17/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/17/25 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:

>
That <is> its correct criterion measure and Mike
uses this same criterion measure on his infinite
loop example.

>
But it only does a correct simulation if it doesn't abort its simulation.
>
PERIOD.
>

>
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>
    H correctly simulates as far as [A], at which point
    it correctly determines that
    "its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted",
    so it can decide "non-halting".
>
H is not reporting on actual the behavior of H(D)
that halts after D has been aborted.

>
It isn't? Then it isn't a Halt Decider.
>

 Mike said it is a correct partial halt decider
when his SHD simulates an infinite loop and then
reports on the behavior of what would happen
if this SHD did not abort its simulation.
 Thus Mike says that the SHD should not report
on the actual behavior of SHD/infinite loop
that does abort its input.

No, that is not what Mike said. In case of an infinite loop, that is specified in the input. Aborting an infinite loop does not change the input.
But it is completely different when the input includes the abort code, so that no infinite recursion is specified in the input.
If the input specifies already an abort, then it makes no sense to dream about an infinite recursion. You should face the fact that the input specifies an abort and in this way specifies a halting program.
It is incorrect to abort a halting program only because you are dreaming of an infinite recursion. Come out of rebuttal mode.