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

On 5/13/25 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 6:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.mei.2025 om 06:52 schreef olcott:

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.

>
That has been done hundreths of times.
>

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

>
One of the things that have been shown to you to be wrong.
Repeating it can be interpreted as lying.
The report must be about the behaviour specified in the input, including the code to abort, not about the behaviour specified in a hypothetical other HHH that does not abort
>

 A simulating termination analyzer according to this exact 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
      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>
 Derives the exact same behavior as the directly executed D()
except in the case where D calls H(D). The traditional way to
handle this case is: *I GIVE UP I HAVE NO IDEA* That is *NOT*
the best of all possible ways to handle that case.
 

Nope, and since you have admitted that your D / DD / DDD aren't propgrams, and thus that statement doesn't apply, you are just showing that you are just a stupid pathological liar, and have no idea of the meaning of your words, and even you idea that Truth comes from just the meaning of the words is based on your not understanding what the meaning of the words actually is.