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

On 5/14/2025 4:31 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

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.
>
I keep challenging you to provide this alternative
meaning and you dodge because you know that you are
lying about there being any alternative meaning
FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE.

 No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the
words (which appear to be incomplete).
 

The above words are the premise that derives
a conclusion. If I give people here more than
two sentences they get totally confused.
<snip>

 To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in
the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting
status of D.
 

Yes, exactly.

I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that.  The problem is
that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible.
 

HHH does correctly simulate DDD until
HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD
would never stop running unless aborted.
Since HHH does do this it is proven to be possible.
<snip>
You are my only honest reviewer.
Everyone else dishonestly ignores what I say
in the presumption that I must be incorrect.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer