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

On 5/13/25 1:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:11 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 13/05/2025 03:01, olcott wrote:

If the Goldbach conjecture is true (and there is
no short-cut)

>
We don't know that. Fermat's Last Theorem had a short cut, but it took 358 years to find it. At that rate, we won't find Goldbach's short cut (if it has one) for another 75 years.
>

this requires testing against every
element of the set of natural numbers an infinite
computation.

>
Only if it's true. So if it's true, the testing program will never halt. But if it's false, the tester will eventually find the counter- example, print it, and stop.
>
So a program that can tell whether another program will halt can tell us whether Goldbach's conjecture is true.
>
It would be the short cut that you say doesn't exist.
>

 I am refuting the key halting problem, proof
I am not refuting the halting problem.

Which means you first need to fix your system to be compatible with it.

 As soon as it is understood that I am correct
that HHH(DD) computes the mapping from its
input to recursive emulation. Then in a few small
steps it will be know that I refuted the conventional
Halting Problem proofs.
 

Which will be never, since your claim is based on lies and equivocation.
The "Bahavior of the input" is only defined to be the behavior of the direct execution of the program it represents, and any change of that to something that gives a different answer is just a LIE, something you seem to live on.
Yes, there are Univesrsal Turing Machines that show that we can replace this with a simulation, but ONLY if such simulation exactly and fully reproduces the behavior of the input, which means it can not "stop" its emulation before it gets to its end.
Thus, if you want to talk about "DD correctly emulated by HHH", that condition ONLY had meaning if that is what HHH does, which means HHH fundamentally has been stipulated to NEVER stop its emulation. It doesn't matter if to meet some other requirement it is stated that it can, to do so violates this criteria. To do otherwise would be to try to fight a "running a red ligth" ticket by saying "But I was going under the spead limit". You don't need to follow some rules but all of them.
Also, to even do the simulation, the decider needs to have all the code to be decided, and have it be part of the input. You have made it clear (unless it was just snother of your lies) that you input is specifically just the code of the C function, and does not include the code of the HHH that it calls, that is just available in the memory space. This is like saying it is ok to go into the store and take the computer off the desk, after all, it was just out their in the open.
In summary, you haven't refuted the conventional Halting Problem proof, as you haven't even come close to creating the required conditions. All you have done is refuted your claims of being intelegent, or knowing something ablut what you are talking about, as you clearly don't, but are just showns to be a pathological liar.