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 20:34:01 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <1003cpp$2p0vu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvut31$1mfgr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvviu7$1rc7v$3@dont-email.me>
 <7d1bfcbed36e6754f82e4f73117f30113b763e61@i2pn2.org>
 <1002do3$2i4bk$13@dont-email.me> <1002vmu$2mbr6$2@dont-email.me>
 <100325m$2n1is$2@dont-email.me> <100359g$2mtsb$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 02:34:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d1b86e29fda6298d6d1c334106b9947";
	logging-data="2917374"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19g6QPcmzFU6Ew92Cy3bszm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cGZz9AwuhwEAy12ptqBdxlBt0ws=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100359g$2mtsb$10@dont-email.me>

On 5/14/2025 6:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 4:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 14/05/2025 21:50, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
> 
> <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
> 
>>>> THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS.
>>>
>>> Simulation is not a requirement, merely an implementation detail. 
>>> Mapping the halting function is the requirement:
>>
>> I think Mr Olcott sees simulation as a requirement, if not /the/ 
>> requirement.
>>
> 
> This whole post and every single message is only
> about how HHH/DDD and HHH/DD meet the EXACT WORDS
> OF THE ABOVE SPEC. All divergence from this was
> a dishonest dodge.
> 
> 


HHH doesn't even meet the prerequisites since halt deciders work with 
algorithms and your HHH does not and therefore has nothing to do with 
the halting problem, as you have admitted:


On 5/13/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/13/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/13/2025 8:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/13/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
 >>>>>>>> or they themselves could become non-terminating.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original
 >>>>>>> was given.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> It is not supposed to be the same program.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input.
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes.
 >>>
 >>> Which includes the specific sequence of bytes that is the finite
 >>> string HHH
 >>>
 >>
 >> No it does not. A function calls is not macro inclusion.
 >>
 >
 > Then you admit that your HHH not deciding about algorithms and therefore
 > has nothing to do with the halting problem.