MIT Professor Michael Sipser validates the notion of a simulating halt decider V2

[olcott]

<Sipser approved 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 abstract>

to this paper:

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

The proof that the simulation of D by H is correct and that this
correctly simulated D would never stop running unless aborted is on page
3 of the above paper. People that fail to comprehend the technical
details of page 3 are unqualified to assess the correctness of page 3.

The technical prerequisites for page 3 are expert knowledge of the C
programming language, knowledge of x86 assembly language and how the C
calling conventions are implemented in x86 assembly language.

Page 4 shows the application of a simulating halt decider to the Peter
Linz proof proving that the "impossible" input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the embedded
copy of Linz H contained within Linz Ĥ is correctly construed as
specifying non-halting sequence of configurations.

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

[Mr Flibble]

You have been told multiple times now that you are not doing a correct
simulation of D so it doesn't matter what Sipser says.

The correct simulation of D by H is D behaving as if there was a
direction execution of D(D).

/Flibble

[olcott]

By people not having the technical competence (see above technical
prerequisites) to verify that this simulation is correct.