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

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.
The only simulation that would be accepted for the first paragraph is a CORRECT AND COMPLETE emulation, not the partial one done by H, and the only thing simulated in that simulation is the EXACT D given to H, which uses THAT H, the one that you says eventually aborts and returns the non-halting value, and thus that D, when actually correctly simulated (which H doesn't do) will halt.
Note, all your claims do is show you don't understand that basic rules of the field, such as Program must contain all their code, and programs can only use the data of their input, so the "input D" is ALWAYS the D that calls the H that acta like your final H, and thus when you imgaine H not aborting, that doesn't change the input.
All you are doing is proving you are just a stupid pathological liar that doesn't know what he is talking about, and either doesn't care or is so stupid he can't learn the basics.