Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 07:19:53 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <vft4op$44tc$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqsng$1gikg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfsadf$1urkc$1@dont-email.me> <vfsbjp$1v0d6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 11:19:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="136108"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vfsbjp$1v0d6$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4011
Lines: 61

On 10/30/24 12:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2024 10:50 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 10/29/2024 8:50 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> On 29/10/2024 13:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> To the best of my knowledge no one besides me ever came up with the
>>>> idea of making a simulating halt decider / emulating termination
>>>> analyzer.
>>>
>>>      The /idea/ is ancient, and certainly dates back at least to the
>>> 1970s.  For a relatively informal discussion, see paragraph 3 of
>>>
>>>    http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
>>>
>>> intended for second-year undergraduates and present on the web from 1996
>>> [though then as a Nottingham University web page].  I certainly didn't
>>> invent the idea.  The same page includes some stuff about Busy Beavers.
>>> You, and perhaps others, may also find some of the surrounding pages
>>> [linked from that one] interesting, eg the stuff about UTMs and about
>>> minimal computers.  Again, I am not claiming credit for inventing any
>>> of this.
>>
>> You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in less 
>> than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before responding? 
>> A good troll would have waited a few hours before answering.
> 
> Announced how I reviewed it and Richard correctly corrected me.
> It is still wrong, but for a different reason. It rejects the
> self-evident truth of this idea:


Which just proves that you thnk LYING is ok, and that you regularly LIE 
in what you say,

> 
> <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>
> 

Which means that if H can determine that a CORRECTLY (which to Professr 
Sipser means completely) Simulation of THIS input would not halt.

SInce it does, (even if H doesn't do it because it wasn't programmed to) 
H could not correctly determine that it does.

You "logic" is based on lying about what a "program" is, as you 
"program" doesn't contain all the code it uses so your hypothetical H 
can be given the "same input" that isn't actually the same,

Sorry, you are just proving will all of this that you are nothig but a 
DAMNED LIAR that doesn't care about truth.

> Zeno could make a paradox concluding that it is impossible
> to walk across the room. Zeno was simply wrong.
> 

As are YOU.