Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Ben fails to understand
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:36:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <v66miu$2r26d$9@dont-email.me>
References: <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v66bcq$2plrr$1@dont-email.me>
 <667d8d81cab22f1619657d4db28f52ffd5d3c2cc@i2pn2.org>
 <v66fq7$2q8ag$2@dont-email.me>
 <99e374c37feadfc0a36fec61f19b780a0de7a7e7@i2pn2.org>
 <v66hb0$2qr6f$5@dont-email.me>
 <d02a4f230f49fe358611bb5ccc6245f2ca5262e6@i2pn2.org>
 <v66i9g$2r26d$1@dont-email.me>
 <204fde5db3f457fe7be16e0bcd8295f213202028@i2pn2.org>
 <v66ktc$2r26d$7@dont-email.me>
 <0fe5140fd102520ace65b0e5a72036f1e66eab83@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 19:36:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c";
	logging-data="2984141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+l5qZe5ddEikTg2xh7AMFZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dxMydbyzQiEbvbC46wVV2GlTFr4=
In-Reply-To: <0fe5140fd102520ace65b0e5a72036f1e66eab83@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5687

On 7/4/2024 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/4/24 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/4/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/4/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>      fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate" and
>>>>>>>>>>>>      "correctly simulate"]
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H 
>>>>>>>>>>> (it's
>>>>>>>>>>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines 
>>>>>>>>>>> that P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>> *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and 
>>>>>>>>>>> accepts that
>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by 
>>>>>>>>>>> what would
>>>>>>>>>>> happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they 
>>>>>>>>>>> actually are.
>>>>>>>>> You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved
>>>>>>>> criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong
>>>>>>>> H is correct to reject D as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the 
>>>>>>> first part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore
>>>>>> the second part <is> entailed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not talking 
>>>>> about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Ben did say that the criteria has been met*
>>>
>>
>> <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
>>
>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>
>>> He said your ALTERED criteria had been met.
>>>
>>
>> *Ben said that this criteria has been met*
>>      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
>>
>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>  > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
>>  > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
>>  > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>> ...
>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
>>  > halted.  That much is a truism.
>>
> 
> But Ben didn't say it was because of a "Correct Simulation".
> 

I am not going to address your stupid lies any more.

Ben agreed that the above criteria has been met.
Anything and everything that even hints that this
is not true is a lie.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer