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

Op 14.mei.2025 om 05:42 schreef olcott:

On 5/12/2025 1:17 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>
>

 People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
x86 language. Then they shut up about this.

Olcott tried to get away by claiming that his simulator follows the rules of the x86 language, but he ignores the proofs that the x86 language was violated with a premature abort. He always ignores proofs that disturb his dreams.

 People tried to get away with saying that HHH
cannot not decide halting on the basis of
*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.

Olcott tries to get away with a vague vacuous statement, but he ignores all refutations that says that if the condition 'unless aborted' is present, the input specifies a halting program.  He always ignores refutations that disturb his dreams.

 People tried to get away with saying that the correct
emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
*H correctly simulates its input D until*

Olcott tries to get away with a partial simulation, even when it has been proven that this partial simulation skips the most important part of the input, the part that contains the code for the abort.
He always ignores all reactions that disturb is dreams.