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 16:54:17 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <1002vto$2mbr6$6@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>
 <1002eee$2i4bk$18@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 22:54:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="794812149fd3df87a1483ec84874242e";
	logging-data="2830182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19p21k8eWWbKEBDJQXc33l8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YVBtwthIuvt0bFieQ7rsKkgC6/A=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1002eee$2i4bk$18@dont-email.me>

On 5/14/2025 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

And *yet again* you lie by implying Sipser agrees with your 
interpretation of the above when definitive proof has been repeatedly 
provided that he did not:

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.


Your dishonesty knows no bounds.