Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- WDH
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 07:08:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6325283bd7bfc0ac931ed1b5dd599276f64b002f@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <1003iac$2toq3$1@dont-email.me> <1003j4b$2tnhr$2@dont-email.me>
 <1003j7g$2tnhr$3@dont-email.me>
 <74364426e12e8ed93481207ffe6c37514df11110@i2pn2.org>
 <1003pgo$2ul9e$4@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 11:27:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="449036"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <1003pgo$2ul9e$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/15/25 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>>
>>>>>> 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've seen a lot of time and
>>>>>> bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't
>>>>>> even been quoting correctly).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light.
>>>>>> I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it.
>>>>>> I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to
>>>>>> analyze the rest of PO's claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed 
>>>>> to. IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the 
>>>>> words.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING*
>>>> (I just noticed that today)
>>>>
>>>> You were perfectly correct until you made the
>>>> statement that
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>  > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input
>>>>  > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough
>>>>
>>>> Every HHH is identical except that the outermost
>>>> simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole
>>>> simulation before the next inner one.
>>>>
>>>> This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts
>>>> then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have already gone over this 150 times in the last
>>> three years.
>>>
>>
>> And it has been refuted nearly as many times, and the refutations 
>> IGNORED, showing you have run out of ways to hide your error.
>>
> 
> It has never been refuted because it is inherently true.

Sure it has, yoiu are just too stupid to understand.

How many times have I given you the reason, and why haven't you shown 
the error in my argument (other than just saying I am wrong).

Note, I have broken done my proof into smaller well defined steps, you 
just repeat your ill-defined words, because you can't go finer without 
making your lies obvious.

> 
>> You just don't understand what the "behavior" of the input means, 
> 
> The exact sequence of steps dumbo.

Right, of the FULL interpretation of its code, which doesn't mean the 
partial emulation done by the particual HHH, but the FULL emulation of 
the EXACT CODE present with that HHH, which HALTS.

> 
>> because you just belive your own lies, rather than the actual 
>> definative definitions, because you can't stand rules.
> 
> It is simple software engineering that is just beyond you skill level.
> 

Nope, you are just using your lies that a partial trace shows 
information about code it never saw.


Tell me, does this program halts:


int foo() {
   while( bar()) continue;
   return 0;
}

That is the full input describing foo, just as your DDD is the full 
input describing DDD.

If your logic claims it can deduce what DDD() does, it should be able to 
deduce what foo() does