Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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: References: <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <667d8d81cab22f1619657d4db28f52ffd5d3c2cc@i2pn2.org> <99e374c37feadfc0a36fec61f19b780a0de7a7e7@i2pn2.org> <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 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>      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. >>>>>> >>>>> 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 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* > 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. > 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