Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 16:53:09 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 110 Message-ID: <10033c5$2mtsb$4@dont-email.me> References:

<10013oa$2a1j4$3@dont-email.me> <10013u2$24gr3$21@dont-email.me> <1001652$2aias$1@dont-email.me> <100225e$2gb0v$2@dont-email.me> <1002c41$2i4bk$7@dont-email.me> <1002vf2$2mbr6$1@dont-email.me> <1002vr7$2mivc$1@dont-email.me> <10031ih$2mbr6$12@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 23:53:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b4c815c0318038d25de37dcdc1ad225"; logging-data="2848651"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+3t4dA7fTpqLR7nTwuC9Q" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:TJhPaOld/UGhbr4/r+kDrncPRrY= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <10031ih$2mbr6$12@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message On 5/14/2025 4:22 PM, dbush wrote: > On 5/14/2025 4:52 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/14/2025 3:46 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 5/14/2025 11:16 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/14/2025 7:26 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 5/14/2025 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: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 below is a non-response to the above. This constitutes your >>>>> admission that Sipser did not in fact agree with you, and the fact >>>>> that you trimmed the below proof in your response is your further >>>>> admission that you intent to continue to lie about it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> (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* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with >>>>>>> anything >>>>>>> substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have >>>>>>> permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> He did agree with these verbatim words. I have the emails >>>> to prove it. >>> >>> But not what you though he agreed to, as been proven multiple times: >>> >> >> The words that he agreed to only have a single >> meaning as I proved above. > > Yet you continue to dishonestly imply that Sipser agreed with that meaning: > I imply nothing. I simply state the actual facts: *THESE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING* 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. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer