Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met +++
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 21:47:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c6ddf1f59f2646b084a59ad945a032e349c5cbf2@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvte62$15ceh$18@dont-email.me>
 <10013oa$2a1j4$3@dont-email.me> <10013u2$24gr3$21@dont-email.me>
 <1001652$2aias$1@dont-email.me>
 <55f18f6941cf67b84086e6b642e46ae8b024b420@i2pn2.org>
 <1002eee$2i4bk$18@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 01:56:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="396594"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1002eee$2i4bk$18@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4599
Lines: 87

On 5/14/25 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/25 12:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2025 10:50 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2025 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>>>>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>>>>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars    568 rating
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael- 
>>>>>>> Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>   </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is not what you thought he agreed to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have proven otherwise below:
>>>>
>>>> And *yet again* you lie when definitive proof has been repeatedly 
>>>> provided that he did not agree with out:
>>>
>>> (the words only have one correct meaning)
>>> *UNTIL YOU ADDRESS THESE POINTS THEY WILL BE ENDLESSLY REPEATED*
>>>
>>> People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
>>> that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
>>> that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
>>> x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
>>>
>>> People tried to get away with saying that HHH
>>> cannot not decide halting on the basis of
>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>> until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
>>>
>>> People tried to get away with saying that the correct
>>> emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
>>> Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
>>> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>>>
>>
>> Where are they in the ACTUAL Spec?
>>
> 
> <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
> 
> My HHH and DDD do meet the above spec.
> 

Nope, since you admitted that HHH and DDD are not programs, and a Halt 
Decider *IS* a program, and the input to a halt decider is the 
representation of a program.,

Thus, since you admitted that you HHH and DDD are not programs, you 
can't use that.

Sorry, by admitting you are just ignorant of the rules and stipulating 
that you broke them (by stipulating something against the rules) say you 
sunk your proof.

That is like saying that you pumpkin meets the requirements to be a car.