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

Op 14.mei.2025 om 06:28 schreef olcott:

On 5/13/2025 10:50 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 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 is not what you thought he agreed to:
>

>
I have proven otherwise below:

>
And *yet again* you lie when definitive proof has been repeatedly provided that he did not agree with out:

 (the words only have one correct meaning)
*UNTIL YOU ADDRESS THESE POINTS THEY WILL BE ENDLESSLY REPEATED*
 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.
 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.
 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*
 

Repeating false statements do not make them true, even when they are true in your dreams.
It turns out that you do not understand the meaning of the words, such as 'emulated correctly' (not present n HHH, 'rules of the x86 language' (violated in HHH), 'halting' (HHH does not see the halting behaviour of the input), 'correct' (a partial emulation that skips the part where the program halts is incorrect).
But we know that you are unable to process the truth when it disturbs your dreams. So, you forget the truth and repeat your false claims without any evidence for them.