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 11:45:13 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <100mo6p$3cmgr$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> <100f0m7$1in31$1@dont-email.me> <100h052$22oen$3@dont-email.me> <100ha34$24lfd$1@dont-email.me> <100i4cs$292ko$3@dont-email.me> <100i5us$29du3$3@dont-email.me> <100i776$2a4c8$1@dont-email.me> <100i88j$2aalm$1@dont-email.me> <100ia0b$2abui$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 10:45:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="964861fa1740bc5380420e7de708c232";
	logging-data="3562011"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wg3w9BrmtjZ0hSSMVypql"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:maXrqGrEpDkrY5nUiy2FuE9JXFc=

On 2025-05-20 16:18:19 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/20/2025 10:48 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 20/05/2025 16:30, olcott wrote:
>> 
>> <nothing he hasn't said a thousand times before>
>> 
>> <yawn>
>> 
>> Excessive repetition hinders you. But I repeat myself.
>> 
> 
> <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
> 
> No one has actually made any rebuttal of my actual points.

Many have already done that. Most of your poitless points are only
repetion of what was rebutted long ago so a pointer to the rebuttal
would be enough but more often you are responded with a repeated
or a new rebuttal.

> Even Mike tried to get away with the strawman fallacy of
> substituting DDD simulated by HHH1 for my actual claim of
> DDD simulated by HHH.

That was not a straw man fallacy. He didn't pretend that you said
that HHH1 is equivalent to HHH. But there are similiraties, including
that both perform a correct partial or complete simulation of their
input.

-- 
Mikko