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

Op 14.mei.2025 om 17:11 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2025 9:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 20:27:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

>

If my logic was based on lies and equivocation then you could
provide actual reasoning that corrects my errors.

>
I hae.

*crickets.
>

It is truism that simulating termination analyzers must report on
the behavior of their input as if they themselves never aborted this
simulation:

They themselves, but not the HHH called by the input.
>

 <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
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 HHH(DDD) must report on what the behavior of DDD would
be if this same HHH never aborted.

No, HHH must report on the behaviour specified in the actual input, not the hypothetical one that is not present.
sum(3,2) must use the actual input, not the hypothetical 4 and 5.
No the simulation is incorrect and Sipser agreed to a vacuous statement, because the condition of a correct simulation is not present