Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met --- WDH
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:32:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9ddc882256862ab48cce9faa371f3f578a6b379a@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:32:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="289662"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 20:27:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

>>>>> If my logic was based on lies and equivocation then you could
>>>>> provide actual reasoning that corrects my errors.
>>>>
>>>> I hae.
*crickets.

>>>>> It is truism that simulating termination analyzers must report on
>>>>> the behavior of their input as if they themselves never aborted this
>>>>> simulation:
They themselves, but not the HHH called by the input.

>>>> Right, of the input actually given to them, which must include all
>>>> their code, and that code is what is actually there, not created by
>>>> this imaginary operation.
>>> In other words every single byte of HHH and DD are 100% totally
>>> identical except the hypothetical HHH has its abort code commented
>>> out.
Only the simulating one, not the one being simulated.

>>>> But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original was
>>>> given.
>>>>
>>> It is not supposed to be the same program.
>> 
>> So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input.
>> 
> The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes. The finite string of
> HHH is specific sequence bytes.
> The hypothetical HHH that does not abort its input cannot have input
> that has changed because it never comes into actual existence.
We can hypothesise anything we want.

>> This proves your work has nothing to do with the halting problem.
> When ZFC over-ruled naive set theory this caused Russell's Paradox to
> cease to exist.
Not in naive set theory.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.