Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5
 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 03:55:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="62a25b741157347252c8096938b61d22";
	logging-data="214951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18t/pHW1J55hsZRbSferjD6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dodjQeeTnq/xxWDUoV95SGKgtqA=
In-Reply-To: <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5816

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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *We are only talking about one single point*
>>>>>> Professor Sipser must have understood that an HHH(DDD)
>>>>>> that does abort is supposed predict what would happen
>>>>>> if it never aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor Sipser understood that what is not a part of the text
>>>>> is not a part of the agreement. What H is required to predict
>>>>> is fully determined by the words "halt decider H". The previous
>>>>> word "simulating" refers to an implementation detail and does
>>>>> not affect the requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <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>
>>>>
>>>> It is crucial to the requirements in that it specifies that
>>>> H is required to predict
>>>> (a) The behavior specified by the finite string D
>>>
>>> Which must include *ALL* of the code of the PROGRAM D, which includes 
>>> ALL the code of everything it calls, which includes H, so with your 
>>> system, changing H gives a DIFFERENT input, which is not comparable 
>>> in behavior to this input.
>>>
>>>> (b) As measured by the correct partial simulation of D by H
>>>
>>> Nope, by H correctly predicting, with a partial simulation of D by H 
>>> if possible, if the COMPLETE simulaiton by a "hypothetical H" 
>>> replacing H but not changing the input, would never halt.
>>>
>>>> (c) When H would never abort its simulation of F
>>>
>>> Which, since that isn't the case, put you into the realm of fantasy.
>>>
>>>> (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.
>> 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.

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.

Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone
else simply lied about it.

> 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.
> 
> Sorry, that just proves you are a stupid idiot that doesn't know what 
> you are talking about.
> 
> 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.


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