Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<91a0dab8ef3c2c1ddcc23f8818b9ba75850f6c6c@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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: Wed, 14 May 2025 23:06:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <91a0dab8ef3c2c1ddcc23f8818b9ba75850f6c6c@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 03:08:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="402383"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <1003j4b$2tnhr$2@dont-email.me>

On 5/14/25 10:22 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.
> 
> 

So "Identical except ..." means Identical in your world?

Since aborted emulations do not show what a correct emulation does, and 
that is what BEHAVIOR is based on.

So yes, either the outer HHH aborts, and thus ALL HHH abort, and DDD is 
halting, and HHH is worng.

If the outer HHH doesn't abort, it is DIFFERENT than above, and all the 
HHH don't abort, and that DIFFERENT DDD will never halt, as will HHH 
never halt.

DIFFERENT inputs, DIFFERENT results.

Your problem is you just believe your own lies that "same except ..." 
means are the same, and not must be different.

Since all the HHH *ARE* the same, they behave the same, it is just the 
partial emulation done by HHH doesn't show it what it needs.

Yes, HHH can't wait, but must to get the right answer, and thus is wrong.

The need to lie to be right isn't an excuse to lie, but just shows the 
need to be a pathological liar.