Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake

On 5/16/2025 3:06 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.mei.2025 om 07:29 schreef olcott:

*Not at all. I am following these exact words*
<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>
>
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
Shows exactly how to implement those words to implement
a correct Simulating Termination Analyzer. Mike provides
a complete example of how this works.
>
>

  Sipser agreed to a vacuous statement, because the condition 'correctly simulates' was not met.

And by this you mean that when the spec requires
a partial simulation
*until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
You "interpret" this to mean that it must
infinitely simulate non-terminating inputs.

In addition, apparently you do not understand what I said, because you do not bring anything against it.

I only address one point at a time because I found
that almost all of my reviewers get totally confused
even on one single point.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer