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

On 5/14/25 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 15/05/2025 01:11, 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.
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.  I've seen a lot of time and
bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't
even been quoting correctly).
>
I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light.
I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it.
I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to
analyze the rest of PO's claims.
>

>
I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to. IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words.
>

 *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING*
(I just noticed that today)
 You were perfectly correct until you made the
statement that
 On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input
 > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough
 Every HHH is identical except that the outermost
simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole
simulation before the next inner one.
 This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts
then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait.
 

So "Identical except ..." means Identical in your world?
Since aborted emulations do not show what a correct emulation does, and that is what BEHAVIOR is based on.
So yes, either the outer HHH aborts, and thus ALL HHH abort, and DDD is halting, and HHH is worng.
If the outer HHH doesn't abort, it is DIFFERENT than above, and all the HHH don't abort, and that DIFFERENT DDD will never halt, as will HHH never halt.
DIFFERENT inputs, DIFFERENT results.
Your problem is you just believe your own lies that "same except ..." means are the same, and not must be different.
Since all the HHH *ARE* the same, they behave the same, it is just the partial emulation done by HHH doesn't show it what it needs.
Yes, HHH can't wait, but must to get the right answer, and thus is wrong.
The need to lie to be right isn't an excuse to lie, but just shows the need to be a pathological liar.