Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 19:47:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <1000p7u$245as$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvtf7n$17c1i$5@dont-email.me> <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvuala$1hi3q$1@dont-email.me> <vvubuk$1deu5$4@dont-email.me>
 <c92c09994a27681313b2d212ae8b4bd3328fe3a1@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuii6$1j6s0$2@dont-email.me>
 <b7e048a9a61fd5ebf8c68c6506d81fc15f3a07b5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 02:47:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b4c815c0318038d25de37dcdc1ad225";
	logging-data="2233692"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18U7jr+rNiprsu+fGdrAiLy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yimSzaKv6oJUdUuC6HNcEd6EsPs=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <b7e048a9a61fd5ebf8c68c6506d81fc15f3a07b5@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250513-6, 5/13/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 4996

On 5/13/2025 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/25 12:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/12/2025 11:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/12/25 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2025 9:26 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 13/05/2025 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> On the other hand, you are spending a lot of time arguing about his
>>>>>> knowledge and use of C.  Yes, it's awful.  He knows very little C and
>>>>>> the code is crap, but that/is/  a straw man -- it's the simplest 
>>>>>> part of
>>>>>> his argument to fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although it was an attempt to motivate him to improve the code, it 
>>>>> has become blindingly obvious that he's not interested, which is 
>>>>> precisely why I am going to stop bothering.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think that nit picky details
>>>> can refute the gist of what I am saying
>>>> that needs none of these details?
>>>
>>> Since you have yet to show that ANY of your claims are actually 
>>> making the point you want, you should be looking for small gains.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>>   {
>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>   }
>>>
>>> Which isn't a program that can be simulated until you pair it with 
>>> the HHH that it calls, and that will be a different program input for 
>>> each HHH that it pairs with.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>
>>> So, you can prove that for HHH being a pure simulator, it won't reach 
>>> the end, but only after creating an input that calls that HHH, and 
>>> thus can't be decided on by any other HHH that you can think of.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <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>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, *THAT* HHH is allowed to abort, but only because it doesn't.
>>
>> This only has one meaning.
>> *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>
> 
> Right, but not restricted to the partial simulation that H does, 

You have to pay 100% complete attention to
ALL the words. By failing to do this your
rebuttals are dishonest.

Yes it *IS* so restricted.
*H correctly simulates its input D until*

> it meas 
> the actual CORRECT AND COMPLETE simulation of D would never stop running.
> 
> By your definution, a decider can just stop at any point and say that is 
> all I can do, this isn't halting.
> 
> The problem is your system starts by breaking the rules, as you D isn't 
> a program as required, since you exclude the H it calls, allowing you to 
> try to get away with changing it, but all that does is show you have 
> always been a liar.

I am not the one that did not notice these
words that have been repeated for 2.5 years:

*H correctly simulates its input D until*
MEANS A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF EVERY NON-TERMINATING INPUT

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer