Ordinary code analysis proves that H(D,D)==0 according to its criterion.
I have a friend with a masters degree in computer science that agreed to
this after a 75 minute phone discussion carefully analyzing the first
three pages of my paper. He also immediately agreed with the Sipser
approved criterion with no discussion needed.

Original message:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/YmACFEiAoNk/m/wujVvKPvAAAJ

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What
>>
>> But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
>> that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
>
> Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
>

<Sipser Approved Verbatim Abstract>
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):

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.
</Sipser Approved Verbatim Abstract>

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

> H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem
> -- the one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider),
> but D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)

This is the criterion that Ben erased from his reply:
On 10/17/2022 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> *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.

> so H is a POOH decider (again, for this one case -- PO is not
> interested in the fact the POOH is also undecidable in general).
>
>> The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does
>> it, and since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D
>> will halt.
>
> Right, but that's not the criterion that PO is using, is it? I don't
> get what the problem is. Ever since the "line 15 commented out"
> debacle, PO has been pulling the same trick: "D(D) only halts
> because..." was one way he used to put it before finding a more
> tricky wording. For years, the project has simply been to find
> words he can dupe people with.
>

*It is implausible that professor Sipser could be duped*
*into approving an abstract to a paper with this title*
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*