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

On 5/15/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2025 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-14 15:55:58 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/14/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/25 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 10:50 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 2:17 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>
>

>
Which is not what you thought he agreed to:
>

>
I have proven otherwise below:

>
And *yet again* you lie when definitive proof has been repeatedly provided that he did not agree with out:

>
(the words only have one correct meaning)
*UNTIL YOU ADDRESS THESE POINTS THEY WILL BE ENDLESSLY REPEATED*
>
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*
>

>
Where are they in the ACTUAL Spec?
>

>
<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
>
My HHH and DDD do meet the above spec.

>
That is not a spcification. That is a condition. Your HHH does not meet
that condition.
>

 When anyone tries to show how my HHH does not
exactly conform to the exact meaning of the above
words THEY FIRST CHANGE THE WORDS. Richard has
been doing this for years.

No, we just use the actual meaning of the words.
Like, to BE a decider and valid input, they need to be programs, but have now stipulated that they are not, they are just functions.
How can a non-program be a program?

 It was only yesterday that I first noticed that
my code has ALWAYS conformed to the exact meaning
of those words ever since I asked Professor Sipser
to look at those words.

But since your HHH and DDD are not programs, they do not match the meaning of the statement when taken in the context it was pur into.

 I was fooled into trying to rebut Richard's now
dead obvious strawman error for 2.5 years.

No, the problem is you have been working with strawmen for 20.

 A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman)
is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument
different from the one actually under discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>

Right, so since you have admitted that you are not using programs, as the problem requires, you whole system is just a strawman,
As non-programs are not programs, and thus different from the actual problem under discussion.
If you change your tactic, and create your own POOPS system to discuss in, then you can halting POOPS, and whatever that means, but of course, since we are then in deep POOPS we are not talking about the actual Computation Theory and what occures in there.
My guess is you are effeftively trying to refute ZFC by using facts from Naive Set Theory, which just don't apply to ZFC.
That seems as an apt comparison, as so much of your POOPS ideas that you do state seem so naive.