Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/25/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2025 3:05 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/25/2025 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:

*Mike understood this perfectly*
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
--------- Sipser quote -----
    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.
----------------------------
>
we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I said a SHD
does above.  It tells PO that in the tight loop example, H correctly
simulates as far as [A], at which point it correctly determines that
"its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted", so
it can decide "non-halting".
>
All correct and natural, and no deliberately
false premises to mislead PO.
>
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E

>
And you dishonestly left out the part that immediately follows where he states that you are wrong:
>

 *VERFIED FACT*
Mike Terry Proves ---
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
 

PO's problem is his misinterpretation of "its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted".

 

In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough, but

 Ridiculously COUNTER-FACTUAL

False, as the fixed algorithm DDD (i.e. the simulated input) simulated by UTM halts.  It's just that the fixed algorithm HHH does not simulate that far.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 At exactly what point does DDD simulated by
HHH reach its simulated "return" statement?

Category error, as the fixed algorithm HHH simulates for a fixed number of steps and aborts in violation of the x86 language.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with the halting problem as your HHH isn't working with algorithms as required, as you have admitted:
On 5/13/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/13/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/13/2025 8:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/13/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
 >>>>>>>> or they themselves could become non-terminating.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original
 >>>>>>> was given.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> It is not supposed to be the same program.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input.
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes.
 >>>
 >>> Which includes the specific sequence of bytes that is the finite
 >>> string HHH
 >>>
 >>
 >> No it does not. A function calls is not macro inclusion.
 >>
 >
 > Then you admit that your HHH not deciding about algorithms and therefore
 > has nothing to do with the halting problem.