Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/25/2025 9:00 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 25/05/2025 21:30, 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

 Just for the record:
 1)  I didn't offer any proofs of /anything/
 -  I did explain how Sipser's words can be naturally interpreted as explaining
    how a simulating halt decider can operate.  [That is not a proof.]
 

It seems like proof to me.
When-so-ever anyone provides complete and correct reasoning
showing how an expression of language is true, this is a proof.

-  I also explained why that explanation *doesn't* apply to your HHH/DDD pair
 

Yes you did do this.
*On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote*
the simulated input (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated
far enough, but HHH simply /doesn't/ go far enough
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
I use the simpler DDD because everyone here gets
completely confused even by this simple example.
How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
on its own without ever needing to be aborted?
Once you and I work through this one point I may
finally have complete closure.

i.e. the exact opposite of what you're claiming as *VERIFIED FACT*.
 STOP MISREPRESENTING MY WORDS.
 Mike.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer