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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Can ADD be this severe?
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:17:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1f019b9b9aa0948c049e3351a0970975d83e8bbb@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@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>
 <dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me>
 <d593179ccad2eef1e84ab6eeddb0f255b2b386e5@i2pn2.org>
 <v63ml8$27f1a$2@dont-email.me>
 <1f93b46b7624427c02acebc57460bf5364a0bada@i2pn2.org>
 <v64r25$2e7d4$2@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 01:17:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2057085"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v64r25$2e7d4$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4658
Lines: 84

On 7/3/24 8:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/3/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2024 9:11 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 22:55:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist which calls this
>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted (which may be
>>>>>>> never).
>>>>>> Whatever HHH does, it does not run forever but aborts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> HHH halts on input DDD.
>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.
>>>> WTF? It only calls HHH, which you just said halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> An aborted simulation does not count as halting.
>>
>> And doesn't show non-halting either.
>>
>>> Reaching it own machine address 00002183 counts as halting.
>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly do that.
>>
>> But HHH doesn't DO a "Correct Simulation" that can show that, it only 
>> does a PARTIAL simulation.
>>
> 
> <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>
> 
> until H correctly determines
> until H correctly determines
> until H correctly determines
> until H correctly determines
> until H correctly determines
> until H correctly determines
> until H correctly determines

Which it doesn't.

> 
> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT
> 

Nope, just double talk.

H never CORRECTLY determined that a CORRECT SIMULATION (which means one 
that matchs the behavior of the machine represented by the input) would 
never halt, sinc ehta tmachine halts.

You can't argue that H has correctly determined it did something it 
never did,

You laid a perfect trap for yourself in your words, and you fell into it,

You would be an absolute genius if you had an IQ of 250. But since you 
don't you aren't.

Or, Trump would be president right now if he had gotten the most votes. 
He didn't so he isn't.

If H can correctly determine that H did something right that it never 
does, is a similar false premise.