Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 17:47:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <vvttqs$1bfib$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvtt8i$1074k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 00:48:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43745e07502355f27fac5eed8a7d2487";
	logging-data="1424971"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192kZdfNL3EBV9FhAwGqtCv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Zx9ggl4cGy5jeMSy4gBIEVXZzJ8=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250512-4, 5/12/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vvtt8i$1074k$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/12/2025 5:38 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> I have tired to suggest that everyone simply stop replying to PO.  He
>> does not want to be right, he wants the attention and after a final
>> flurry of insulting posts he would probably go elsewhere.
> 
>      I too have tried that suggestion.  But no, every obsessive poster
> here seems to think that they have a killer argument that will finally
> persuade Peter that he is wrong.  Repeated claims of stupidity, lying,
> and so on does nothing to lower the temperature.  You would think that
> bashing ones head against a brick wall 20+ times/day would eventually
> lead to enlightenment, but no, it seems instead to lead to even greater
> determination not to be the poster who simply stops.
> 
>      Personally, I kf articles of more than 100 lines and some of the
> most prolific posters, and also don't bother to read any article which
> fails to grab my attention on the first screenful [kudos to RichardH for
> being one of very few posters to snip appropriately].  That, at least,
> makes the group readable.  I hope someone will wake me up if there is
> ever any actual progress made.  Some hope!  Sadly, it seems more likely
> that two or more posters will discover the joys of AI and set their
> computer to auto-reply semi-intelligently to each and every post.
> 
>      [For all I know, that's how PO already operates and he is not the
> sad misguided attention-seeking person that most here seem to assume, but
> is instead running a vast psychological experiment to see how far he can
> push his LLM before anyone (other than our resident penguin) notices.]
> 

I am only "wrong" when you so strongly presume
that I must be wrong that you don't bother to
pay 100% complete attention to the exact meaning
of my words.

Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
by Michael Sipser (Author)
4.4 out of 5 stars    568 rating

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X

int DD()
  {
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
  }

DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
that this 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>

*its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
only has one meaning.

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