Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v66miu$2r26d$9@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Ben fails to understand Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:36:29 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 101 Message-ID: <v66miu$2r26d$9@dont-email.me> References: <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v66bcq$2plrr$1@dont-email.me> <667d8d81cab22f1619657d4db28f52ffd5d3c2cc@i2pn2.org> <v66fq7$2q8ag$2@dont-email.me> <99e374c37feadfc0a36fec61f19b780a0de7a7e7@i2pn2.org> <v66hb0$2qr6f$5@dont-email.me> <d02a4f230f49fe358611bb5ccc6245f2ca5262e6@i2pn2.org> <v66i9g$2r26d$1@dont-email.me> <204fde5db3f457fe7be16e0bcd8295f213202028@i2pn2.org> <v66ktc$2r26d$7@dont-email.me> <0fe5140fd102520ace65b0e5a72036f1e66eab83@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 19:36:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c"; logging-data="2984141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+l5qZe5ddEikTg2xh7AMFZ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:dxMydbyzQiEbvbC46wVV2GlTFr4= In-Reply-To: <0fe5140fd102520ace65b0e5a72036f1e66eab83@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5687 On 7/4/2024 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/4/24 1:07 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/4/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/4/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. >>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser has been >>>>>>>>>>>> fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to >>>>>>>>>>>> simulate" and >>>>>>>>>>>> "correctly simulate"] >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >>>>>>>>>>> (it's >>>>>>>>>>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>>>>>> that P(P) >>>>>>>>>>> *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. He knows and >>>>>>>>>>> accepts that >>>>>>>>>>> P(P) actually does stop. The wrong answer is justified by >>>>>>>>>>> what would >>>>>>>>>>> happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they >>>>>>>>>>> actually are. >>>>>>>>> You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved >>>>>>>> criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong >>>>>>>> H is correct to reject D as non-halting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the >>>>>>> first part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore >>>>>> the second part <is> entailed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not talking >>>>> about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Ben did say that the criteria has been met* >>> >> >> <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> >> >>> He said your ALTERED criteria had been met. >>> >> >> *Ben said that this criteria has been met* >> 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 >> >> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's >> > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P) >> > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >> ... >> > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not >> > halted. That much is a truism. >> > > But Ben didn't say it was because of a "Correct Simulation". > I am not going to address your stupid lies any more. Ben agreed that the above criteria has been met. Anything and everything that even hints that this is not true is a lie. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer