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 --- WDH
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 17:08:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <100348f$2mtsb$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me>
 <fceb852a146ff7238c5be7a0adf420474a8fb5df@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuc7a$1deu5$5@dont-email.me>
 <c5a47349d8625838f1ee2782c216e0ebf9223bc6@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuj6l$1j6s0$3@dont-email.me>
 <b78af2e0b52f178683b672b45ba1bc2012023aaf@i2pn2.org>
 <1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me> <1000qdb$24gr3$4@dont-email.me>
 <1000rir$24jh0$3@dont-email.me> <1000rqc$24gr3$7@dont-email.me>
 <1000son$24sr2$3@dont-email.me>
 <7947826fb84c9c8db49c392b305d395c3669907f@i2pn2.org>
 <1002dre$2i4bk$14@dont-email.me> <1002vp2$2mbr6$3@dont-email.me>
 <10030c3$2mivc$3@dont-email.me> <87h61mang3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 00:08:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66a8f7019eb14522c3a913b396c0eecb";
	logging-data="2848651"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TSkr0BRr004/Tx52VNebh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LLso4bq4v863WxkEq6k7+r1Z79U=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <87h61mang3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/14/2025 4:31 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully
>>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)
>>>>
>>>> *NOT 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
>>>>
>>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>>>
>>
>> If that was actually true then you could provide an
>> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.
>>
>> I keep challenging you to provide this alternative
>> meaning and you dodge because you know that you are
>> lying about there being any alternative meaning
>> FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE.
> 
> No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the
> words (which appear to be incomplete).
> 

The above words are the premise that derives
a conclusion. If I give people here more than
two sentences they get totally confused.

<snip>
> 
> To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in
> the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting
> status of D.
> 

Yes, exactly.

> I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that.  The problem is
> that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible.
> 

HHH does correctly simulate DDD until
HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD
would never stop running unless aborted.

Since HHH does do this it is proven to be possible.

<snip>

You are my only honest reviewer.

Everyone else dishonestly ignores what I say
in the presumption that I must be incorrect.




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