Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway?
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 09:06:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <v3prd1$1003g$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me> <v3jt2s$3qblu$1@dont-email.me>
 <HlGdnbvc3Ly_YsD7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3l0i0$5d3$2@dont-email.me>
 <lBmcnX-HlodbjMP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3lo7l$3sil$1@dont-email.me> <v3lots$2uv04$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v3lp8g$43oa$2@dont-email.me> <v3lrh9$2uv03$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ls46$4h2j$3@dont-email.me> <v3lscq$2uv04$15@i2pn2.org>
 <v3lt08$8gjv$1@dont-email.me> <v3lu0d$2uv03$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v3lv7c$8kuk$2@dont-email.me> <v3lvii$2uv03$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v3nhjf$gatu$3@dont-email.me> <v3p7pa$t37n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 16:06:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dbcb5a2e000d59c1dda264f94a647a93";
	logging-data="1048688"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HCcfx48HRvwpfk2jc4Am8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qiVfERAUTzuYhs9i1for+MvCPX0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3p7pa$t37n$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4009

On 6/5/2024 3:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 04.jun.2024 om 19:06 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/3/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/3/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the 
>>>>>>>>>> steps*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, 
>>>>>>>>> but that DD itself will halt).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not)
>>>>>>>> get you condemned to Hell.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is strawman about it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore 
>>>>>>> and make lies about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question.
>>>>>> I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet because you know that you keep changing the subject from DD 
>>>> correctly simulated by HH to the directly executed DD(DD)
>>>
>>> Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting, which IS about the 
>>> direct execution of DD
>>
>> Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must
>> compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR
>> OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH).
>>
>> When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the
>> *HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY*
>>
>> When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no
>> an answer that H provides then the counter-example input
>> is precisely isomorphic to the question:
>> Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false?
> 
> This has nothing to do with your problem, because you admitted that the 
> simulation does not even reach the contradictory part.

Hence the reason why:

*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D 


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer