Re: HHH(DDD) correctly determines the halt status of its input according to this specification

On 5/15/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-14 21:50:23 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/14/2025 4:16 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 2:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/05/2025 18:50, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/05/2025 08:11, vallor wrote:

Spent a couple of hours reading back the last few days of posts. Huboy,
what a train wreck.  (But like a train wreck, it's hard to look
away, which might explain how this has been going on for 20(?) years.)
>
I want to thank both Richard's, wij, dbush, Mike, Keith, Fred,
Mikko, and anybody else I've forgotten for trying to explain to
Mr. Olcott and Mr. Flibble how you all see their claims.  I wanted to
point out three things:
>
a) Mr. Olcott claims his HHH simulator detects an non-terminating
input and halts.  But others (I forget who) report that -- due
to a bug -- D would actually terminate on its own.  His HHH
simulator therefore gives the wrong answer.

>
Not really due to a bug.  D actually /does/ terminate on its own, and that's a consequence of PO's intended design.  (Yes, there are bugs, but D's coding is what PO intended.)
>

Hmm, I thought some more about this.  What's considered a bug (rather than e.g. a design error) is entirely dependent on the program's specification.

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
<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
>

And *yet again* you lie by implying Sipser agrees with your interpretation of the above when definitive proof has been repeatedly provided that he did not:
>
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.

>
>
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

>
Ben knows that Professor Sisper does agree with my
meaning of my words and that got Ben all riled up.
Ben was convinced that I tricked professor Sipser
into agreeing with these words.
>
THE COMPLETE PROOF THAT PROFESSOR SIPSER DOES
AGREE WITH MY MEANING MY MY WORDS IS THAT
THE EXACT WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING.

 Do you agree that the meaning of the word "would" includes that
something in the same clause is counter-factual?
 

Not at all.
Mike just made a post that explains all of the details
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
exactly how my meaning of those words does derive a
correct simulating termination analyzer. He even
provided a concrete example proving this.
Mike's only mistake in anything that he ever
said about his very deep analysis of all of
the key details of my work is:
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
Because of the brilliance of all of the other analysis
that Mike did this mistake by Mike is like a master
mechanic that has correctly rebuilt hundreds of engines
THAT HAS NO IDEA WHAT A SPARK PLUG IS
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer