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

On 5/14/2025 7:11 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

 Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was
to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to.

Yes finally an actual honest reviewer that does not
use inflammatory rhetoric to simply dodge rather than
address the actual point.

PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or
ackowledges the statement.  I suggest that perhaps it's actually
a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt
detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it
does not support PO's wider claims. 

<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>
Simple software engineering proves that when HHH(DDD)
evaluates its input
*according the exact meaning of the words*
of the above criteria then HHH is correct to reject DDD.
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
It is very easy for HHH to see the same repeating
state that all competent C programmers can see
under the assumption that HHH is a pure simulator.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer