Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- WDH
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 13:01:08 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <1004hhk$331gh$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me>
 <fceb852a146ff7238c5be7a0adf420474a8fb5df@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuc7a$1deu5$5@dont-email.me>
 <c5a47349d8625838f1ee2782c216e0ebf9223bc6@i2pn2.org>
 <vvuj6l$1j6s0$3@dont-email.me>
 <b78af2e0b52f178683b672b45ba1bc2012023aaf@i2pn2.org>
 <1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me> <1000qdb$24gr3$4@dont-email.me>
 <1000rir$24jh0$3@dont-email.me> <1000rqc$24gr3$7@dont-email.me>
 <1000son$24sr2$3@dont-email.me>
 <7947826fb84c9c8db49c392b305d395c3669907f@i2pn2.org>
 <1002dre$2i4bk$14@dont-email.me> <1002vp2$2mbr6$3@dont-email.me>
 <10030c3$2mivc$3@dont-email.me> <87h61mang3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <87ldqylq3q.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <874ixmag26.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <87cyca3dig.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1003ee7$2p2so$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 13:01:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f01669ad5be46e37f414bf63360950cd";
	logging-data="3245585"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KV9NPpxEvkhRp4iYbVfL5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WlZ14hs7XUA5VLPrPhxDpA5tgQ8=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <1003ee7$2p2so$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3743

Op 15.mei.2025 om 03:01 schreef olcott:
> On 5/14/2025 7:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was
>>> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to.
>>> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or
>>> ackowledges the statement.  I suggest that perhaps it's actually
>>> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt
>>> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it
>>> does not support PO's wider claims.
>>
>> I thought I addressed that directly.  Disconnected from the original
>> context, it can been seen as either a rather obvious true statement or
>> as a true hypothetical.  The trouble is, there is no way to consider it
>> *in isolation* because the meaning of the words depends on context. 
> 
> They do not depend on the context.
> 
>> An
>> educated reader will read a "simulating halt decider" either as a
>> nonexistent entity or as a "best attempt" decider of some class of
>> cases. 
> 
> Until they bother to read its precise specification.
> 
>> Some particular readers will imbue the names H and D with a very
>> specific technical meaning.  And any attempt to re-word it to arrive at
>> something every educated reader will accept as correct will render it
>> irrelevant to PO who only cares about one meaning he has given it.
>>
> 
> Those words only have one meaning.
> The 2.5 years that people have been trying to get
> away with dishonest "interpretations" end today.
> 
> According to the exact meaning of the words of the
> spec HHH does correctly reject the HP counter-example
> input as non-halting.

Only with the 'exact meaning' using definitions that nobody agrees with.
Such definitions of 'correct' and 'simulation' and decider' exist only 
in olcott's dreams.
In reality they have different meaning.