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

On 5/16/25 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:

Mike does not agree that HHH(DD) gets the correct
answer. He does agree that an HHH derived from the
exact meaning of these words is correct:
 <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:
 > There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
 > is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
 >
 > First you should understand the basic idea behind a
 > "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
 > simulates its input, while observing each simulation
 > step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
 > in the simulation.  A simple (working) example here
 > is an input which goes into a tight loop.
(Mike says much more about this)
 *Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
 Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>
 

If he so agrees with you, why are you arguing with him about what he said?
It is also clear from the quotes that Mike is NOT agreeing with your stateent, but you just don't understand him.
All you are doing is proving that you are just a pathological liar and nobody should take anything you say at face value, but check out what is the actual truth.
You switch between your fantasy world where things that are not can just be considered to be, and realtiy, and you assume reality follows the rules of your fantasy.
Sorry, you are just showing out out of touch with reality you are.