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

Op 14.mei.2025 om 17:37 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 1:17 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>
>

>
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*
>
>

>
Right, "Correct Simulations" can never be partial.
>
Partial Simulations can be partial.
>
Deciders can use Partial Simulations, if they do it correctly.
>
But to do so, they need to show that the ACTUAL CORRECT SIMULATION of this EXACT input, which needs to represent a PROGRAM, would never halt.
>

 *That is not what these words say*
<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
 *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*

And since the abort is there, HHH will return and DDD will stop.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 You already admitted the simulated input to HHH(DDD)
*would never stop running unless aborted*
 

And since the abort is there, the HHH wil stop, return to DDD and DDD will stop as well.
Correct simulations see that, for example HHH and other world-class simulators.
Come out of your rebuttal mode. Face the facts instead of your dreams.