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 --- WDH
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 20:45:45 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <1003dfp$2p0vu$5@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> <10031p1$2mbr6$14@dont-email.me>
 <10033l3$2mtsb$6@dont-email.me> <10033qs$2mbr6$18@dont-email.me>
 <10034un$2mtsb$9@dont-email.me> <1003cmq$2p0vu$1@dont-email.me>
 <1003cqs$2p2so$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 02:45:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d1b86e29fda6298d6d1c334106b9947";
	logging-data="2917374"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jZpAPwXzf7KTs4+htvbn4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RyTOJVEpzis527r0b/lCBCg2R10=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1003cqs$2p2so$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/14/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 7:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else reading "its simulated D" would read it as "the direct 
>> execution of algorithm D which H is simulating"
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 

I'll let you respond to yourself:

On 10/12/2024 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
 > That your rebuttals are pure bluster utterly bereft of any
 > supporting reasoning is clear to all having sufficient
 > technical understanding.


And that's how I read it, because that's the only interpretation that's 
compatible with the requirements:


Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X 
described as <X> with input Y:

A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the 
following mapping:

(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly