Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5
 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 21:45:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <cd375f68f97a737988bab8c1332b7802509ff6ea@i2pn2.org>
 <va13po$376ed$7@dont-email.me>
 <d42e5d30ea5f1c067283cb04d8a7293e2117188e@i2pn2.org>
 <va24hl$3cvgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
 <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:45:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3400097"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5031
Lines: 76

On 8/21/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/21/2024 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/21/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-21 03:01:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>> *We are only talking about one single point*
>>>>> Professor Sipser must have understood that an HHH(DDD)
>>>>> that does abort is supposed predict what would happen
>>>>> if it never aborted.
>>>>
>>>> Professor Sipser understood that what is not a part of the text
>>>> is not a part of the agreement. What H is required to predict
>>>> is fully determined by the words "halt decider H". The previous
>>>> word "simulating" refers to an implementation detail and does
>>>> not affect the requirements.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <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>
>>>
>>> It is crucial to the requirements in that it specifies that
>>> H is required to predict
>>> (a) The behavior specified by the finite string D
>>
>> Which must include *ALL* of the code of the PROGRAM D, which includes 
>> ALL the code of everything it calls, which includes H, so with your 
>> system, changing H gives a DIFFERENT input, which is not comparable in 
>> behavior to this input.
>>
>>> (b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H
>>
>> Nope, by H correctly predicting, with a partial simulation of D by H 
>> if possible, if the COMPLETE simulaiton by a "hypothetical H" 
>> replacing H but not changing the input, would never halt.
>>
>>> (c) When H would never abort its simulation of F
>>
>> Which, since that isn't the case, put you into the realm of fantasy.
>>
>>> (d) This includes H simulating itself simulating D
>>
>> Right, H must CORRECTLY predict the behavior of an UNABORTED emulation 
>> of its input, and if, and only if, it can determine that such an 
>> emulation would never halt, then it can abort its emulation.
>>
>> Note, that is the emulation of this exact input, including D calling 
>> the ORIGINAL H, not changing to the Hypothetical, since by the rules 
>> of the field, the input is a fixed string, and fully defines the 
>> behavior of the input.
>>
> 
> You are contradicting yourself.
> Your ADD may prevent you from
> concentrating well enough to see this.
> 

I was right, you couldn't name it so you are just admiting that you are 
a liar trying to create an ad hominem attack that failed.

Your problem is you don't know what the words mean, and when someone 
uses something that confuses you because you don't understand the words, 
rathrer than try to find out what it is you don't understand, you try to 
put the other person down.

Sorry, that just proves you are a stupid idiot that doesn't know what 
you are talking about.

That means your chance of actually doing what you claim you want to do 
is about that of a snowflake in Hell, which you just might get the 
chance to see if it can happen.