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

On 5/14/2025 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

Dishonestly changing the words and rebutting those
changed words may get you condemned to actual Hell.
<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
*its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer