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

On 5/20/25 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2025 11:58 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/05/2025 17:46, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2025 11:44 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/05/2025 17:18, olcott wrote:

No one has actually made any rebuttal of my actual points.

>
It's far from clear what your actual points are.
>
But I repeat myself.
>

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

>
The evidence of articles posted in this newsgroup suggests strongly that what you think Mike Terry 'proves' is very different from what he thinks he's saying.
>

 *The bullshit and double-talk posted here does no such thing*
 On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 --------- Sipser quote -----
    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.
----------------------------

Which means it needs to correctly determine the behavior of the input, which must be a complete program, and thus for DDD, it includes the code of the HHH that gives the correct answer, which *WILL* abort its simulation and return, and thus DDD will always Halt, and thus HHH can not "correctly" determine something to happen that doesn't happen.

 we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I said
a SHD does above.  It tells PO that in the tight loop example,
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".

But it CAN'T, as the input doesn't do that.

 https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
 

It also suggests that you are trying to muddy the waters.
>

 Liar!

Self-projecting.
Since you have demonstrated that you *ARE* a liar by admitting your application of this criteria is based on an admitted category error (admitted by admitting your input isn't the needed category of "program")
Sorry, you sunk your proof when you did that.

 

I think you're being deliberately unclear and trying your utmost not to be understood.
>
Why, I know not. But you are not behaving as someone would who has confidence in his argument. If you truly believed you were right, you would be doing your utmost to make yourself clear. Every foolish repetition and every pointless evasion makes it harder and harder for anyone to take you seriously.
>