Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake

On 5/16/25 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 3:06 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.mei.2025 om 07:29 schreef olcott:

*Not at all. I am following these exact words*
<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>
>
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
Shows exactly how to implement those words to implement
a correct Simulating Termination Analyzer. Mike provides
a complete example of how this works.
>
>

>
>
Sipser agreed to a vacuous statement, because the condition 'correctly simulates' was not met.

>
And by this you mean that when the spec requires
a partial simulation
>
*until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
>
You "interpret" this to mean that it must
infinitely simulate non-terminating inputs.

>
Which means, as I explained else, if H, after doing a partial simulation, can determine that a COMPLETE simulation of this exact input would be non-halting, it can abort.
>

>
Not quite. One key detail is missing.
*H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
>
Is referring to what the behavior of D would be
(in the hypothetical case) where this very same
H never aborted.

>
Nope, since D must stay D, and D must be a fully encoded program and thus doesn't change when you make the hypothetical H.
>

>
*Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>
Mike perfectly explains all of this with a concrete
example. In this case H determines that its infinite
loop input would never stop running unless aborted
so it aborts it and correctly rejects it.
>
H is not being asked what is the behavior of this
infinite loop after H aborts it. It is being asked
what its behavior would be if H never aborted it.
>
HHH is not being asked what is the behavior of
DDD after HHH aborts it. It is being asked
what its behavior would be if HHH never aborted it.
>
>

>
What makes you think I haven't.
>

 You haven't what?

Read all the message.

 

And, since DDD needs to be a PROGRAM to do any of this, as non-leaf functions can't be correctly emulated, that DDD DOES include the code of the HHH it was built for, which is the HHH that aborts and returns 0.
>

 It is the job of HHH to determine whether or not its
input *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS ABORTED*

No, its job is to determine if the program that the input represents will halt.
It can do that by determining if a correct simulation of this input would halt or not.

 When you keep switching this back to
*WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DDD IS ABORTED*
You become a damned liar.

NO, when you ignore that this *IS* the actual question, you show that you are the liar.

 HHH and DDD and everything that HHH calls
*WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS DDD IS ABORTED*
 

Nope, not when DDD is the actual program you are impling is what you mean, the one from the proof, which means it calls the HHH that is claied to give the correct answer.
Now, since you have stipulated that DDD isn't that program, but just the C function as a non-leaf description, everything you talk about it becomes a category error, as it isn't a valid input to a real halt decider (which you also stipulate that your HHH isn't, as it also isn't a program).
Sorry, all you are doing is showing that you have no regard for truth, and think you can make up whatever shit you think might stick to the wall.
You have sunk your argument, and your reputation into that lake of fire that burns up all falsehood. Sorry, but that is just the truth, even if you are unable to understand it as your mind has been too corrupted by your own lies.