| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v66pqo$2s728$1@dont-email.me> 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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Ben fails to understand Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:31:52 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 129 Message-ID: <v66pqo$2s728$1@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> <v66miu$2r26d$9@dont-email.me> <8f903328bbbf13c79b9f702c3bf2d704cb52352c@i2pn2.org> <v66nb9$2rv8q$1@dont-email.me> <e79e6bf8eb9cca41174d28a2dfd92c74297493cc@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 20:31:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c"; logging-data="3021896"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+H2z0wBYZc1BoDVPzlJPEt" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:pLwI7WAnzx/E+969qRQQrLcXK48= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <e79e6bf8eb9cca41174d28a2dfd92c74297493cc@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 7003 On 7/4/2024 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/4/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/4/2024 12:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/4/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Beleive whatever. lies you want. >>> >> >> It is a verified fact that Ben did agree that the criteria >> have been met. That you insist upon lying about that so >> that we cannot proceed to the next step that follows that >> gives me no reason to continue talking to you. >> > > > The problem is that Ben is adopting your definitions that professor > Sipser is not using. > Ben agrees that my criteria have been met according to their exact words. If you want to lie about that I won't talk to you again. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer