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

On 5/22/25 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/22/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-21 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
No, they do not. Sipser said nothing about any specific language. That
you may apply his words to a specific language does not mean that
Sipser referred to that language.
>

 *If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D*
What is the criterion measure of a correct simulation?

That it simulates until it reaches the final state of the input.
WHich means it can't be a decider.
Sorry, your world is just full of contrdictions.

 _DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]

Which CAN'T be the full input, as it isn't a program, and thus HHH can't correctly simulate its input past the call HHH instruction.
Thus, with this input, you can't correctly simulate it at all.
WHen you fix it by including the code of the actual HHH as part of the input, we find that the only HHH that does the correct simulaiton never answers, and the HHH that answers couldn't have done a correct simution of THAT input, and the correct simulation of it will halt.

 The damned liars here are trying to get away with
a correct simulation of DDD interprets: "push ebp"
to mean "jmp 000021a3"

No, the DAMNED LIES are the ones you make about HHH actually doing the correct simulation of the incorrect input.

 

None of which contradicts or even attempts to contradict what I said:

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.

>

 If a > b and b > c then a > c is entailed.
*simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D*
entails a measure of correct simulation.
 

But only *IF* it does the correct simulation, and the input is correctly simulable (which means in includes the code of the HHH that is answering, and thus NOT the D that was shown to be non-halting).
Sorry, you are just proving that you are just a pathological liar that doesn't understand what he is talkig about, and has been shown to be just a stupid liar.