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

On 5/14/2025 4:22 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 3:46 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 7:26 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:

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 below is a non-response to the above.  This constitutes your admission that Sipser did not in fact agree with you, and the fact that you trimmed the below proof in your response is your further admission that you intent to continue to lie about it.
>
>

(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*
>

>

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.

>

>
He did agree with these verbatim words. I have the emails
to prove it.

>
But not what you though he agreed to, as been proven multiple times:
>

>
The words that he agreed to only have a single
meaning as I proved above.

 Yet you continue to dishonestly imply that Sipser agreed with that meaning:
 

I imply nothing. I simply state the actual facts:
*THESE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING*
<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>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer