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

On 5/13/25 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/12/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
>

>
Any C programmer can correctly tell what doesn't happen.
What doesn't happen is DD reaching its "return" statement
final halt state.
>

>
Sure they can, since that is the truth, as explained.
>
Since your "logic" is based on lies and equivocation,

>
If my logic was based on lies and equivocation
then you could provide actual reasoning that
corrects my errors.

>
I hae.
>

>
It is truism that simulating termination analyzers
must report on the behavior of their input as if
they themselves never aborted this simulation:

>
Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include all their code, and that code is what is actually there, not created by this imaginary operation.
>

 In other words every single byte of HHH and DD are
100% totally identical except the hypothetical HHH
has its abort code commented out.
 

Thus, a HHH that aborts to return an answer, when looking at the DDD that calls it, must look at the unaborted emulation of THAT DDD, that calls the HHH that DOES abort and return an answer, as that is what the PROGRAM DDD is, If you can not create the HHH that does that without changing that input, that is a flaw in your system, not the problem.
>

>
*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
or they themselves could become non-terminating.

>
But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original was given.
>

 It is not supposed to be the same program.
*simulated D would never stop running*
refers to a different HHH/DD pair

But he never said that, "D" is the "D" that was mentioned earler, which is the D that calls this H.
You are just admitting that you have been lying.

 It is a hypothetical HHH/DD pair where everything
is exactly the same except that HHH has no abort
code.

No it isn't, D is always the same program and input.
Where was it said it could change?

 Ben freaked out that professor Sipser agreed
to my use of the term *would* in
*simulated D would never stop running*
and said that he thought I tricked professor Sipser.

No, your tricked yourself by making yourself think Professor Sipser agreed to something he didn't.
But of course, you are good at lying, even to yourself.

 This is all still there in newsgroup servers
that don't keep deleting older messages.
 

Yes, including all your lies about how you keep on changing your defintions, and then sometimes going back to them.
Sorry, but since you have admitted that you HHH and DD are not programs, NOTHINNG Professor Sipser said about H and D apply to them, as to HIM those terms were about PROGRAMS and only programs, so not your non-program C functions.
Sorry, you sunk your own battleship.