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 16:53:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <10033c5$2mtsb$4@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>
 <1002vr7$2mivc$1@dont-email.me> <10031ih$2mbr6$12@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 23:53:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b4c815c0318038d25de37dcdc1ad225";
	logging-data="2848651"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+3t4dA7fTpqLR7nTwuC9Q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TJhPaOld/UGhbr4/r+kDrncPRrY=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <10031ih$2mbr6$12@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message

On 5/14/2025 4:22 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Yet you continue to dishonestly imply that Sipser agreed with that meaning:
> 

I imply nothing. I simply state the actual facts:
*THESE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING*

<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>


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