Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 2025-05-21 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/21/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-20 14:37:40 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/20/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-20 04:20:54 +0000, olcott said:
 

<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
 Do you understand that we are only evaluating whether
or not HHH/DDD meets this above criteria?

 I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned
in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious consequence
of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.

 *H correctly simulates its input D until*
specifies that HHH must simulate DDD according
to the meaning of the rules of the x86 language.

 The words Sipser agreed to do not refer to that specification, and
is irrelevant to the fact that the meaning of the behaviour, if
there is any, isn't referred there, either.

 Sure they do. There is only a single measure of
*H correctly simulates its input D*
When the language of D is the x86 language.

No, they do not. Sipser said nothing about any specific language. That
you may apply his words to a specific language does not mean that
Sipser referred to that language.
None of which contradicts or even attempts to contradict what I said:

I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned
in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious consequence
of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.

--
Mikko