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 15:52:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <1002vr7$2mivc$1@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> <100225e$2gb0v$2@dont-email.me>
 <1002c41$2i4bk$7@dont-email.me> <1002vf2$2mbr6$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 22:52:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b4c815c0318038d25de37dcdc1ad225";
	logging-data="2837484"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QEi11mQYQpu77FB0uZ5BK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:45InpGXIAVD9xqUd2ryBQibJD9c=
In-Reply-To: <1002vf2$2mbr6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/14/2025 3:46 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 11:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 7:26 AM, dbush wrote:
>>> 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. 
>>>
>>
>> He did agree with these verbatim words. I have the emails
>> to prove it. 
> 
> But not what you though he agreed to, as been proven multiple times:
> 

The words that he agreed to only have a single
meaning as I proved above. That you ignore this
proves that you are dishonest.



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