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

On 5/14/2025 4:25 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)

>
*NOT IN THE ACTUAL 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
>

>
That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>

>
If that was actually true then you could provide an
alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.

 That Ben relayed a statement saying explicitly that is proof enough.
 

There is NO SUCH THING as proof enough.
That is not the way that any actual proof really works.
*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>
Professor Sipser *DID* agree with those words.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer