Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 11:18:29 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <100mmkl$3cdk8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org> <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1006oi9$3l93f$1@dont-email.me> <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me> <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me> <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me> <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org> <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me> <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org> <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me> <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org> <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me> <35c9fb020e868823c3e46c006d9ac4698eaf4f82@i2pn2.org> <100dl6g$16vdn$1@dont-email.me> <f02a2fb26f6e1dedd29638f9b42befaab4781f17@i2pn2.org> <100dst7$18epo$1@dont-email.me> <100f18f$1iree$1@dont-email.me> <100gvv6$22oen$2@dont-email.me> <100h9le$24iha$1@dont-email.me> <100i43k$292ko$2@dont-email.me> <100k1si$2o9h6$1@dont-email.me> <100kro3$2tae8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 10:18:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="964861fa1740bc5380420e7de708c232";
	logging-data="3552904"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OzuUtr3VZaASKDjTrw6YY"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lvFobcdtr52sk+DSTqHkDbsS9HU=

On 2025-05-21 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/21/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-20 14:37:40 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 5/20/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-20 04:20:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> <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
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you understand that we are only evaluating whether
>>>>> or not HHH/DDD meets this above criteria?
>>>> 
>>>> I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned
>>>> in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious consequence
>>>> of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.
>>> 
>>> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>>> specifies that HHH must simulate DDD according
>>> to the meaning of the rules of the x86 language.
>> 
>> The words Sipser agreed to do not refer to that specification, and
>> is irrelevant to the fact that the meaning of the behaviour, if
>> there is any, isn't referred there, either.
> 
> Sure they do. There is only a single measure of
> *H correctly simulates its input D*
> When the language of D is the x86 language.

No, they do not. Sipser said nothing about any specific language. That
you may apply his words to a specific language does not mean that
Sipser referred to that language.

None of which contradicts or even attempts to contradict what I said:
> I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned
> in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious consequence
> of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.

-- 
Mikko