Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 20:54:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0f0bfbe55763659c7638a2ac8990633e143cadde@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <cd375f68f97a737988bab8c1332b7802509ff6ea@i2pn2.org>
 <va13po$376ed$7@dont-email.me>
 <d42e5d30ea5f1c067283cb04d8a7293e2117188e@i2pn2.org>
 <va24hl$3cvgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
 <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <va7ueb$h3la$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:54:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3524973"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <va7ueb$h3la$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4517
Lines: 65

On 8/22/24 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/22/2024 12:30 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/21/2024 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/21/2024 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/21/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/21/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-21 03:01:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>>>>>> (d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, H must CORRECTLY predict the behavior of an UNABORTED
>>>>>> emulation of its input, and if, and only if, it can determine that
>>>>>> such an emulation would never halt, then it can abort its emulation.
>>>>>> Note, that is the emulation of this exact input, including D calling
>>>>>> the ORIGINAL H, not changing to the Hypothetical, since by the rules
>>>>>> of the field, the input is a fixed string, and fully defines the
>>>>>> behavior of the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are contradicting yourself.
>> What’s the contradiction?
>>
>>>>> Your ADD may prevent you from concentrating well enough to see this.
>>>>>
>>>> I was right, you couldn't name it so you are just admiting that you are
>>>> a liar trying to create an ad hominem attack that failed.
>>>>
>>> I have been over this same point again and again and again and your
>>> "rebuttal" is changing the subject or calling me stupid.
>> On the contrary, we are talking in circles.
>>
>>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation
>>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
>> If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
>> by construction, the same and *does* abort.
>>
>>> Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simply lied
>>> about it.
>> I don’t think you understood him.
>>
> 
> He agreed to my own words that I spent two years carefully crafting.
> I know what my own words mean. He would have not agreed to anything
> that is incoherent or self-contradictory. He gave me permission to
> directly quote him.

But with his (i.e. the official meaning from the theory) meaning to 
them, which you appear to not understand.

Misusing his words, by using the wrong meaning is just LYING.

> 
>>>> Your problem is you don't know what the words mean, and when someone
>>>> uses something that confuses you because you don't understand the
>>>> words,
>>>> rathrer than try to find out what it is you don't understand, you try
>>>> to put the other person down.
>>
>>>> That means your chance of actually doing what you claim you want to do
>>>> is about that of a snowflake in Hell, which you just might get the
>>>> chance to see if it can happen.
>> Nice.
> 
>