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

On 5/21/25 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-20 14:37:40 +0000, olcott said:
>

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 words Sipser agreed to do not refer to that specification, and
is irrelevant to the fact that the meaning of the behaviour, if
there is any, isn't referred there, either.
>

 Sure they do. There is only a single measure of
*H correctly simulates its input D*
When the language of D is the x86 language.
 

Right, and no H that returns an answer does it.
Of course, we first need to fix D by making it actually be a program, by including all the code it uses, and adding that to the input so it can be simulated properly.