Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<fd9ed0d85ddacd6f1ccd3b21fc17d7e85c95b5a5.camel@gmail.com>

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

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway?
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 09:06:17 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <fd9ed0d85ddacd6f1ccd3b21fc17d7e85c95b5a5.camel@gmail.com>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me> <v3j320$2qu72$17@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 03:06:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="53ecd3a08a774183dc348db4349cad0c";
	logging-data="3764614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TYbjWN/hbvkmNyqBTgEb0"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:shfN7V8hQeJhiN87tJnIRimmdYI=
In-Reply-To: <v3j320$2qu72$17@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4055

On Sun, 2024-06-02 at 20:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/2/24 8:16 PM, immibis wrote:
> > The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine that tells=20
> > whether executing each other Turing machine will halt. Simulation has=
=20
> > nothing to do with the question.
>=20
> Because it looks like an out to solve the question. He doesn't actual=20
> seem to care about halting (which is why he is so ignorant about it) but=
=20
> cares about the fact that the Halting Theorem (or pulling the same sort=
=20
> of proof) can show so many other things can't be done in other fields.
>=20
> There ARE some principles that allow the use of a certain type of=20
> simulation, that of the UTM which is defined to just recreate the=20
> behavior of the machined described, and a simple way to do that is to=20
> build a simulator. (UTMs are not actually defined by simulation, but by=
=20
> results).
>=20
> Olcott, in his typical method of playing with things he doesn't really=
=20
> understand, things that by tweeking the rules on the simulation, he=20
> might be able to get something close enough to Halting and using a UTM,=
=20
> that he can sneek his bad proof by, trying to replace the UTM simulation=
=20
> forever to show non-halting to trying to invoke an "induction-like"=20
> infinte set of "related" machines to try to argue that his infinite set=
=20
> of=C2=A0 "correct" (but partial) simulation is just as good the one infin=
ite=20
> simulation in showing non-halting.
>=20
> Not how he needs to keep things a bit undefined to avoid making the scam=
=20
> to obvious, and blocking his shell game.
>=20
> The key of the shell game is making an H that aborts simulating a=20
> machine using it, some how "equal" to a DIFFERN machine built on a=20
> DIFFERENT H that does simulate forever, and get stuck.
>=20
> If he can make you think these to input are "the same" because they are=
=20
> based things with the same name and doing things sort of the in the same=
=20
> way, just one is finite and the other never halts, he can pull a=20
> switcher-roo and show that the input to his actual H, which does halt,=
=20
> can be argued to not-halt as it was ok to swap it with the other machine.
>=20
> Ultimately, this comes down to his H needs to change its behavior when=
=20
> the "pathological machine" uses it, which is why his H^ uses an=20
> embedded_H instead of just a copy of H, so he can try to argue it could=
=20
> be different.
>=20

olcott's one POOH can prove anything from H(D,D)=3D0 is correct, H(D,D)=3D1=
 is
correct, both 1/0 are correct, none is correct, the input is invalid,
the D is fault,the HP is wrong...=C2=A0"the correct simulation of correct H=
=C2=A0
determining the correct D is self-effident that POOH is totology, absolutel=
y
correct."

All your effort just end up for him to find another execute. He is=C2=A0det=
ermined
to exhaust all possible excuse. I am predicting what the next excuse would =
be.