Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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 12:07:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <v66ktc$2r26d$7@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 19:07:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c";
	logging-data="2984141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CVM2DMcFnZUuIdCkceBQJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sR3ZwlofYb3uhqPxSkfloOYvrGc=
In-Reply-To: <204fde5db3f457fe7be16e0bcd8295f213202028@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5016

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.

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