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

On 5/13/25 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.
>

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:

But D does stop running without being aborted (but of course your H doesn't do that) as it calls the actual H that we actualy have that aborts its simulation of its input and returns 0 to D.

 <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
  

But since the correct simulation of THAT D, the one given to H, that is a program (unlike your claims) that calls the actual H (which aborts and returns 0) will show that D halts, your H can't correctly show that it doesn't, and you are shown to have just lied.
Sorry, you sunk your own battleship.