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

On 2025-05-20 18:49:05 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/20/2025 12:46 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.mei.2025 om 16:37 schreef olcott:

On 5/20/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-20 04:20:54 +0000, olcott said:
 

<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
 Do you understand that we are only evaluating whether
or not HHH/DDD meets this above criteria?

 I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned
in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious consequence
of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.
 

 *H correctly simulates its input D until*
specifies that HHH must simulate DDD according
to the meaning of the rules of the x86 language.
 The meaning of every step of the behavior is
precisely specified by the x86 language.
 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 *H correctly simulates its input D*
00002172 00002173 00002175 0000217a
H correctly simulates itself simulating DDD
00002172 00002173 00002175 0000217a
 *until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*

 That is a wild guess of HHH,

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 Sure and people that have no idea what
infinite recursion is would say the same thing.

More inportant is that people who know what an infinite recursion is
say the same. People who have no idea may even agree with yuo.
--
Mikko