Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years

On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said:
 

*two dozen people were simply wrong*

 Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve
a subject line? I would think that people who are right are
more interesting.
 

This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem itself.
Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in
another reply.
That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that
the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three years IS
WRONG.
Because DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive
simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation this conclusively
proves that H is correct to reject DD as non-halting no matter what the
behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) is.
*The following is not agreement with ALL of the above words*
Professor Sipser said nothing about:
*no matter what the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) is*
*He was pressed for time so we could not get that far in the conversion*
*Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser*
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
*On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM*
MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed that these verbatim words are correct
(He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
<Professor Sipser agreed>
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.
</Professor Sipser agreed>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer