Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<204fde5db3f457fe7be16e0bcd8295f213202028@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Ben fails to understand Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:53:57 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <204fde5db3f457fe7be16e0bcd8295f213202028@i2pn2.org> References: <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v66bcq$2plrr$1@dont-email.me> <667d8d81cab22f1619657d4db28f52ffd5d3c2cc@i2pn2.org> <v66fq7$2q8ag$2@dont-email.me> <99e374c37feadfc0a36fec61f19b780a0de7a7e7@i2pn2.org> <v66hb0$2qr6f$5@dont-email.me> <d02a4f230f49fe358611bb5ccc6245f2ca5262e6@i2pn2.org> <v66i9g$2r26d$1@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 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2132706"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v66i9g$2r26d$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4455 Lines: 78 On 7/4/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes: >>>>>>>>> [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser >>>>>>>>> has been >>>>>>>>> fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to >>>>>>>>> simulate" and >>>>>>>>> "correctly simulate"] >>>>>>>> I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's >>>>>>>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that >>>>>>>> P(P) >>>>>>>> *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. He knows and >>>>>>>> accepts that >>>>>>>> P(P) actually does stop. The wrong answer is justified by what >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they >>>>>>>> actually are. >>>>>> You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <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> >>>>> >>>>> The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved >>>>> criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong >>>>> H is correct to reject D as non-halting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the first >>>> part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar. >>>> >>> >>> Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore >>> the second part <is> entailed. >>> >> >> >> No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not talking >> about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements. >> > > *Ben did say that the criteria has been met* He said your ALTERED criteria had been met. Since your criteria is NOT the criteria for halting, you can't use it to claim non-halting. Thus, your claims are shown to be stupid lies out of your intentional ignorance of definitions. > > On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's > > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P) > > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. > ... > > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not > > halted. That much is a truism. > > *If the criteria has been met then its second half is entailed* > >>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D > >>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > *Ben incorrectly believes that Professor Sipser is wrong about this* >