*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
> (in this one case)...

H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...

When we apply ordinary code analysis to the Sipser_H simulation of
Sipser_D we empirically verify that Sipser_H does correctly simulate the
first seven instructions of Sipser_D.

This same correct code analysis conclusively proves that Sipser_D would
never stop running unless Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
Anyone having sufficient technical competence can confirm this on the
basis of page 3 of this paper. The abstract has been specifically
approved by professor Sipser for this paper:

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

Full execution trace is in Halt7_Sipser.txt linked below:
int main()
{ Sipser_D(Sipser_D);
}

Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
(d) The execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is shown in
Halt7_Sipser.txt
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer