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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Ben fails to understand
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:32:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0fe5140fd102520ace65b0e5a72036f1e66eab83@i2pn2.org>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 17:32:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2132706"; 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: <v66ktc$2r26d$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5360
Lines: 97

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".

Ben was willing to alter the definition of Simulatioin to your, while 
Professor Sipser didn't

This is just you playing word games.

Joining two sentences from different converstation that just use the 
same words is not a proof, but indicates that there may be a difference 
in meaning being used.