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 17:58:50 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <10033mq$2mbr6$16@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>
 <10033c5$2mtsb$4@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 23:58:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="794812149fd3df87a1483ec84874242e";
	logging-data="2830182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19U0nFI+IfrOB0xXLFqgWDY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yRSOTiZTWKsPDC0rEbw4GotaXRw=
In-Reply-To: <10033c5$2mtsb$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/14/2025 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Then stop saying Sipser agreed to those words and just post them by 
themselves.