Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@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>
	<b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
	<va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3438386"; 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
Bytes: 3894
Lines: 51

Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/21/2024 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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:

>>>>> (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.
What’s the contradiction?

>>> 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.
>> 
> I have been over this same point again and again and again and your
> "rebuttal" is changing the subject or calling me stupid.
On the contrary, we are talking in circles.

> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation
> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
by construction, the same and *does* abort.

> Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simply lied
> about it.
I don’t think you understood him.

>> 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.

>> 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.
Nice.
-- 
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.