Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/25/25 4:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2025 3:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/25/25 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

>
Nope.
>
You don't understand what he said.
>

>
Yes I did and you know I did and you risk
eternal damnation by saying otherwise.
>

 No, because you think your DDD that doesn't contain the code of HHH as part of it can be simulated.