Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 19:54:40 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <100qcp2$6j1f$2@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$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>
 <100qau6$6cva$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 19:54:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4eccb3f3f363d163e571b8bff3e67b53";
	logging-data="216111"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XXwDEi8pX77AQvNjS3ap0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vBHr4qMgFKpPvAQVd1mAaWJ/rpw=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <100qau6$6cva$1@dont-email.me>

Op 23.mei.2025 om 19:23 schreef olcott:
> 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*


Only in your dream. It is a verifiable fact that the input specifies a 
halting program. Only HHH, die to a bug, does not see that, because it 
halts the simulation before it can see the halting behaviour specified 
in the input.

> 
>> 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*

Only in your dream there is an infinite recursion. The verifiable fact 
is that only a finite recursion is specified, because the simulated HHH 
has code to abort after one recursion.
Try to think! Come out of rebuttal mode. Face the facts, instead of your 
dream.

> 
>> 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.
> 
Your bug does not say anything about my competence.
That you do not understand the bug tells a lot about your technical 
competence.