Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met +++
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 08:26:23 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <100225e$2gb0v$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvte62$15ceh$18@dont-email.me>
 <10013oa$2a1j4$3@dont-email.me> <10013u2$24gr3$21@dont-email.me>
 <1001652$2aias$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:26:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="794812149fd3df87a1483ec84874242e";
	logging-data="2632735"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qos08ztC5IR3kqxVZXlU/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OtOsF6GwHaiU4c26RcSz/3098tc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1001652$2aias$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/14/2025 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 10:50 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2025 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars    568 rating
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael- 
>>>>> Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>>>
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>   {
>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>   }
>>>>>
>>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>>>
>>>>> <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>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is not what you thought he agreed to:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have proven otherwise below:
>>
>> And *yet again* you lie when definitive proof has been repeatedly 
>> provided that he did not agree with out:
> 

The below is a non-response to the above.  This constitutes your 
admission that Sipser did not in fact agree with you, and the fact that 
you trimmed the below proof in your response is your further admission 
that you intent to continue to lie about it.


> (the words only have one correct meaning)
> *UNTIL YOU ADDRESS THESE POINTS THEY WILL BE ENDLESSLY REPEATED*
> 
> People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
> that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
> that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
> x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
> 
> People tried to get away with saying that HHH
> cannot not decide halting on the basis of
> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
> until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
> 
> People tried to get away with saying that the correct
> emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
> Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
> 

>>On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
>> substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
>> permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.