Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) correctly determines the halt status of its input according to this specification
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 11:56:56 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <1006uko$3mcve$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1001fms$29d3f$1@dont-email.me> <1002l5k$2ke1m$1@dont-email.me> <1002pj0$2ldvf$1@dont-email.me> <1002q95$2le74$1@dont-email.me> <100316p$2mbr6$10@dont-email.me> <100336v$2mtsb$3@dont-email.me> <10048no$31mf0$1@dont-email.me> <10069t3$3dmiv$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 10:56:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="abd1b64ae44f9182d2921706a7e56707";
	logging-data="3879918"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rHbKVyPimiT38BGTnwQW5"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BXQ2nxfL7m3r6rJf92hcKK939YM=
Bytes: 4439

On 2025-05-16 03:02:58 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/15/2025 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-14 21:50:23 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 5/14/2025 4:16 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2025 2:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/05/2025 18:50, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/05/2025 08:11, vallor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Spent a couple of hours reading back the last few days of posts. Huboy,
>>>>>>>> what a train wreck.  (But like a train wreck, it's hard to look
>>>>>>>> away, which might explain how this has been going on for 20(?) years.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I want to thank both Richard's, wij, dbush, Mike, Keith, Fred,
>>>>>>>> Mikko, and anybody else I've forgotten for trying to explain to
>>>>>>>> Mr. Olcott and Mr. Flibble how you all see their claims.  I wanted to
>>>>>>>> point out three things:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> a) Mr. Olcott claims his HHH simulator detects an non-terminating
>>>>>>>> input and halts.  But others (I forget who) report that -- due
>>>>>>>> to a bug -- D would actually terminate on its own.  His HHH
>>>>>>>> simulator therefore gives the wrong answer.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Not really due to a bug.  D actually /does/ terminate on its own, and 
>>>>>>> that's a consequence of PO's intended design.  (Yes, there are bugs, 
>>>>>>> but D's coding is what PO intended.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hmm, I thought some more about this.  What's considered a bug (rather 
>>>>>> than e.g. a design error) is entirely dependent on the program's 
>>>>>> specification.
>>>>> 
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> <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
>>>>> 
>>>> And *yet again* you lie by implying Sipser agrees with your 
>>>> interpretation of the above when definitive proof has been repeatedly 
>>>> provided that he did not:
>>>> 
>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
>>>>> substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
>>>>> permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
>>> 
>>> Ben knows that Professor Sisper does agree with my
>>> meaning of my words and that got Ben all riled up.
>>> Ben was convinced that I tricked professor Sipser
>>> into agreeing with these words.
>>> 
>>> THE COMPLETE PROOF THAT PROFESSOR SIPSER DOES
>>> AGREE WITH MY MEANING MY MY WORDS IS THAT
>>> THE EXACT WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING.
>> 
>> Do you agree that the meaning of the word "would" includes that
>> something in the same clause is counter-factual?
> 
> Not at all.

Then your claim that those words have just one meaning is refuted.
Usually the word "would" is not used except when discussing counter-
factual situations, so caounter-factuality is a part of its normal
meaning.

-- 
Mikko