Sujet : Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met -- wrong words
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. May 2025, 23:24:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1008dvf$3vlcm$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/16/2025 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/16/25 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/16/2025 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/16/25 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/16/2025 11:08 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 16/05/2025 15:33, olcott wrote:
Mike does not agree that HHH(DD) gets the correct
answer. He does agree that an HHH derived from the
exact meaning of these words is correct:
>
<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>
>
>
Please stop telling other people what you think I agree and do not agree with. It serves no possible purpose other than as some kind of warped Appeal To Authority.
>
Just argue whatever point you are making in your own words.
>
Mike.
>
>
The ultimate measure of truth is the correct reasoning
that you provided showing exactly how a correct SHD
can be derived from the exact meaning of the quoted words.
>
You carefully evaluated the exact meaning of the quoted
words and showed how a correct SHD can be derived from
these words. Everyone else changes the words and then
dishonestly rebuts the changed words.
>
Everyone else is dishonest with me, yet will not
be dishonest with you.
>
>
>
NO, it can't, and that is because you show you don't know the correct meaning for the words, because you beliave your lies about it.
>
For 2.5 years the words always said that they
require a partial simulation of non-terminating
inputs and you "interpreted" that as meaning
that non-terminating inputs must be infinitely
simulated.
>
Then you based your whole rebuttal on these changed words.
>
No, the word have NEVER meant that the determination of "non-halting" is DEFINED by a partial simulation,
Yes you liar this is what THESE words mean:
*simulates its input D until*
MEANS A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF NON-TERMINATING INPUTS
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met