Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 12:23:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <100qau6$6cva$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$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> <100l9vd$30b4k$4@dont-email.me>
 <100la7t$30aak$4@dont-email.me> <100pjuf$1tgj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 19:23:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4606f99203c21d5702beb16569e2a0e8";
	logging-data="209898"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WxrtRbyJQgkv7eSB1CcVc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:slY6jmbLROoVd1oIG3gwKvV3AFI=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250523-4, 5/23/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <100pjuf$1tgj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4940

On 5/23/2025 5:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 21.mei.2025 om 21:40 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/21/2025 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 21.mei.2025 om 17:33 schreef olcott:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that is not the measure of a partial simulation that misses the 
>>> part where the input specifies the abort and halts.
>>
>> Because you are incompetent at software engineering
>> you are clueless about the idea of unreachable code.
>>
> 
> 
> Only irrelevant ad hominem attacks. 

*unreachable code*
*unreachable code*
*unreachable code*
*unreachable code*

> Not rebuttal. So, it seems you 
> understand that that is not the measure of a partial simulation that 
> misses the part where the input specifies a halting behaviour. 

The halting behavior is *unreachable code*
The halting behavior is *unreachable code*
The halting behavior is *unreachable code*

> That HHH 
> has a bug 

Your lack of technical competence is not my bug.
Your lack of technical competence is not my bug.
Your lack of technical competence is not my bug.

> that makes that it does not show the behaviour specified in 
> the input (because it aborts before it could reach the verifiable 
> reachable end of the program), does not change the fact that that 
> behaviour *is* specified in the input.


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