Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH

On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/12/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/12/25 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:

Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
by Michael Sipser (Author)
4.4 out of 5 stars    568 rating
>
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael- Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>
int DD()
  {
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
  }
>
DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
that this criteria has been met:
>
<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
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
  </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>

>
Which your H doesn't do, as it can not correctly determine what doesn't happen.
>

>
Any C programmer can correctly tell what doesn't happen.
What doesn't happen is DD reaching its "return" statement
final halt state.
>

>
Sure they can, since that is the truth, as explained.
>
Since your "logic" is based on lies and equivocation,

>
If my logic was based on lies and equivocation
then you could provide actual reasoning that
corrects my errors.

>
I hae.
>

>
It is truism that simulating termination analyzers
must report on the behavior of their input as if
they themselves never aborted this simulation:

>
Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include all their code, and that code is what is actually there, not created by this imaginary operation.
>

>
In other words every single byte of HHH and DD are
100% totally identical except the hypothetical HHH
has its abort code commented out.

 In other words you changed the input.
 Changing the input is not allowed.
 

>

Thus, a HHH that aborts to return an answer, when looking at the DDD that calls it, must look at the unaborted emulation of THAT DDD, that calls the HHH that DOES abort and return an answer, as that is what the PROGRAM DDD is, If you can not create the HHH that does that without changing that input, that is a flaw in your system, not the problem.
>

>
*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
or they themselves could become non-terminating.

>
But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original was given.
>

>
It is not supposed to be the same program.

 So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input.
 

The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes.
The finite string of HHH is specific sequence bytes.
The hypothetical HHH that does not abort its input
cannot have input that has changed because it never
comes into actual existence.
*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*

This proves your work has nothing to do with the halting problem.
 

When ZFC over-ruled naive set theory this caused
Russell's Paradox to cease to exist.

If you were just honest about the fact that you're not actually working on the halting problem, no one would be giving you any trouble.

Equally we could say that ZFC was not working
on the actual Russell's Paradox.
What I am doing is the same thing that ZFC did.
ZFC did not figure out how to correctly define
a set of all sets that do not contain themselves.
Instead ZFC rejected the foundation upon which
RP was built. That is what I am doing.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer