Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 23:07:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 67 Message-ID: <1003pal$2ul9e$3@dont-email.me> References:

<1000dlc$21dtc$5@dont-email.me> <1000qdb$24gr3$4@dont-email.me> <1000rir$24jh0$3@dont-email.me> <1000rqc$24gr3$7@dont-email.me> <1000son$24sr2$3@dont-email.me> <7947826fb84c9c8db49c392b305d395c3669907f@i2pn2.org> <1002dre$2i4bk$14@dont-email.me> <1002vp2$2mbr6$3@dont-email.me> <10030c3$2mivc$3@dont-email.me> <87h61mang3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87ldqylq3q.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <874ixmag26.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <1003iac$2toq3$1@dont-email.me> <1003j4b$2tnhr$2@dont-email.me> <91a0dab8ef3c2c1ddcc23f8818b9ba75850f6c6c@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 06:07:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66a8f7019eb14522c3a913b396c0eecb"; logging-data="3101998"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qG4Gthi40HsNYogAM2qB6" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:lDg3hg7m/JPY2Lmh0WGUi3W04hU= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <91a0dab8ef3c2c1ddcc23f8818b9ba75850f6c6c@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message On 5/14/2025 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/14/25 10:22 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>> >>>> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was >>>> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. >>>> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or >>>> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually >>>> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt >>>> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it >>>> does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and >>>> bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't >>>> even been quoting correctly). >>>> >>>> I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light. >>>> I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it. >>>> I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to >>>> analyze the rest of PO's claims. >>>> >>> >>> I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to. >>> IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words. >>> >> >> *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING* >> (I just noticed that today) >> >> You were perfectly correct until you made the >> statement that >> >> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input >> > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough >> >> Every HHH is identical except that the outermost >> simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole >> simulation before the next inner one. >> >> This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts >> then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait. >> >> > > So "Identical except ..." means Identical in your world? > If you knew about cooperative multi-tasking I could explain it to you. > Since aborted emulations do not show what a correct emulation does, and > that is what BEHAVIOR is based on. > You are trying to get away with twisting the exact meaning of these words. It took me two years to write those words. 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 HHH correctly simulates itself simulating DDD -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer