Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met +++
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 10:55:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <1002eee$2i4bk$18@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>
 <55f18f6941cf67b84086e6b642e46ae8b024b420@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 17:55:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b4c815c0318038d25de37dcdc1ad225";
	logging-data="2691444"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xzqA9zeFDnTGwnSBzV/MW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8QT1JqESexdUJeyqiDhakxukqzU=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <55f18f6941cf67b84086e6b642e46ae8b024b420@i2pn2.org>

On 5/14/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/25 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 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*
>>
> 
> Where are they in the ACTUAL Spec?
> 

<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

My HHH and DDD do meet the above spec.

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