Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:25:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1afcd9d43f1524d6e5d967febfb06b6ef5fb6091@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
 <178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org>
 <v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me>
 <168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org>
 <v62bgv$1s632$6@dont-email.me>
 <211a07c98d1fc183ed3e6c079ec1e883dd45f1cc@i2pn2.org>
 <v62f92$20moo$3@dont-email.me>
 <623debd817e63a256100bb15fed3af8d4fb969fe@i2pn2.org>
 <v62hc7$20moo$6@dont-email.me>
 <e3c734b6a1ce3386210f7700bf03d183334d4d55@i2pn2.org>
 <v63jkc$26loi$7@dont-email.me>
 <0600a243a3bb843ec505712dc7746d41e0ca66dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v63n8u$27f1a$3@dont-email.me> <v63rd7$24jon$1@dont-email.me>
 <v63s2c$28dpi$1@dont-email.me>
 <f7c1d91bf0108f101bbccac8882c1b5a71ebdb39@i2pn2.org>
 <v665m8$2oun1$8@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 15:25:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2132707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v665m8$2oun1$8@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6757
Lines: 95

On 7/4/24 8:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2024 5:20 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:51:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately
>>>>>>>>>> loop in the emulation.
>>>>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.
>>>>>>>> Why do they get to lie?
>>>>>> Open question.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial
>>>>>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself
>>>>>>>>>> a fully correct emulator.
>>>>>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is
>>>>>>>>> an incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
>>>>>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and
>>>>>>>> truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep lying about this?
>>>>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.
>>>>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag
>>>>>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition.
>>>>>> <- Which it therefore isn’t.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *This is the repeating state*
>>>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state.
>>>
>>> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling author
>>> of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing about
>>> *infinitely* repeating state.
>> If the state doesn’t repeat infinitely often, it is not the same state
>> and does halt.
>>
> 
> It took me two years to come up with these words please make
> sure that you totally understand each one of them.
> 
> <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>
> 


And you perfectly trapped yourself as it is well known that to Professor 
Sipser, like any sane person working in the field, the definition of a 
"Correct Simulation" means (unless psecifically ammended, which you 
forgot to do) a simulation that FULLY reproduces the behavior that the 
machine the input represents does when it is run.

Since D(D) Halts when run (since your H is defined to abort its 
simulation and return non-halting, in your mind correctly) then any 
"Correct Simulation" of the input will show this too, so it is 
IMPOSSIBLE that THIS H's simulation be correct and show it to never stop 
running, as that is by definition not a correct simulation, and it is 
also IMPOSSIBLE for H to correctly determine that ANY "Correct 
Simulation" of this input would never stop running as it does stop running.

So, you laid the perfect trap for yourself giving him a softball to hit 
out of the park, giving you a true answer that you just don't 
understand, because you are so convinced that you are allowed to change 
the fundamental meaning of words.

In simpler words, you logic is based on your claiming the right to LIE 
by redefining the words that others use.

Perhaps a lot of this is just due to your utter ignorance and stupidity 
because you never bothered to learn the terminology of the field, but 
tried to deduce it with your "zeroth order principles" (they are not 
based first principles, as that requires you to first learn those first 
principles) from which you have made up your (largely incorrect) 
definitions of the terms. But it isn't just ignorance, as ignorance will 
try to learn when corrected, but you just stick your heels in the shit 
you produced and ignore the truth, thus, making you into a pathological 
liar, who with a reckless disregard for the truth, tries to spread your 
false ideas as if they had some foundation other than the POOP that 
fills your mind.