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

On 5/13/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 8:58 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 8:45 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 9:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 8:19 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 7:58 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:46 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

The global trace table does not record the simulation level for an entry, so the matching process is agnostic when it comes to simulation levels.   Also note there are many conditional branch instructions in HHH which would prevent matches occuring if we were to include HHH instructions in the examined trace!
>

>
Yes that is true. The program-under-test is not the test-program.

>
FALSE!!!!
>
It is *both* the test program *and* part of the program under test. As such, it is not allowed to be changed for any reason, hypothetical or otherwise.

>
Let the record show that no attempt was made to refute the above, therefore Peter Olcott has admitted that HHH part of the code under test, i.e. part of the input.
>

>

When HHH is reporting on the behavior of the finite string of x86
machine code specified by DD,

>
i.e. the machine code of the function DD, the machine code of the function HHH, and the machine code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS leve.
>

>
*would never stop running unless aborted*
Thus meets this spec:
>
<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

>
Which you lie about Sipser having agreed with:
>
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.
>

>
When we go by the exact meaning of the words
he agreed to as the measure then I am correct.

>
But not by the way he and everyone else understood them,

>
This post is only about the fact that HHH does
meet the above spec. It was never about anything
else and your changing the subject is dishonest.

>
Then maybe you should stop implying that Sipser agrees with the above when it's been proven on multiple occasions that he has not.
>
*That* is dishonest.
>

 I have the emails where he agreed that I could
publish his agreement with those exact words.

But he didn't agree to your meaning of those words, and your continued implication that he does is a form of lying.