Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Ben fails to understand
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:53:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <204fde5db3f457fe7be16e0bcd8295f213202028@i2pn2.org>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:53:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2132706"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v66i9g$2r26d$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4455
Lines: 78

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*

He said your ALTERED criteria had been met.

Since your criteria is NOT the criteria for halting, you can't use it to 
claim non-halting.

Thus, your claims are shown to be stupid lies out of your intentional 
ignorance of definitions.

> 
> 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.
> 
> *If the criteria has been met then its second half is entailed*
>  >>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>  >>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> 
> *Ben incorrectly believes that Professor Sipser is wrong about this*
>