Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- WDH
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 18:01:00 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <10033qs$2mbr6$18@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me>
 <fceb852a146ff7238c5be7a0adf420474a8fb5df@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuc7a$1deu5$5@dont-email.me>
 <c5a47349d8625838f1ee2782c216e0ebf9223bc6@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuj6l$1j6s0$3@dont-email.me>
 <b78af2e0b52f178683b672b45ba1bc2012023aaf@i2pn2.org>
 <1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me> <1000qdb$24gr3$4@dont-email.me>
 <1000rir$24jh0$3@dont-email.me> <1000rqc$24gr3$7@dont-email.me>
 <1000son$24sr2$3@dont-email.me>
 <7947826fb84c9c8db49c392b305d395c3669907f@i2pn2.org>
 <1002dre$2i4bk$14@dont-email.me> <1002vp2$2mbr6$3@dont-email.me>
 <10030c3$2mivc$3@dont-email.me> <10031p1$2mbr6$14@dont-email.me>
 <10033l3$2mtsb$6@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 00:01:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d1b86e29fda6298d6d1c334106b9947";
	logging-data="2830182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19STkIuK7AhNpsbAmkDQNix"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZDLV3T4FgX0zwoSLO6VDrZb0wko=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10033l3$2mtsb$6@dont-email.me>

On 5/14/2025 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 4:25 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully 
>>>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do) 
>>>>>
>>>>> *NOT 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that was actually true then you could provide an
>>> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.
>>
>> That Ben relayed a statement saying explicitly that is proof enough.
>>
> 
> There is NO SUCH THING as proof enough.
> That is not the way that any actual proof really works.

If Ben said that Sipser told him he doesn't agree with what you said, 
that is conclusive proof.