Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #58554 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-10-14 19:23 +0200 |
| Last post | 2022-10-14 20:27 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 299 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Olcott lies Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 19:23 +0200
Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-14 20:36 +0100
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 14:49 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:04 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:19 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:31 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:45 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:56 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 16:20 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 17:49 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 17:21 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:04 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 18:12 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:21 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:32 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:37 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:06 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 14:43 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-14 23:05 +0100
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 17:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:07 +0200
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:11 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 18:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:21 +0200
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:43 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:59 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:03 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:22 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:26 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 19:31 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:04 +0200
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:51 +0200
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:41 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 03:58 +0200
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 21:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 04:22 +0200
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 21:42 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 22:50 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 21:54 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 23:16 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 22:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 06:42 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 12:01 +0100
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:20 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 09:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 08:33 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 09:50 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:30 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 10:54 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 10:02 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:30 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 22:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:35 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:46 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:03 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:19 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:30 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:42 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 22:16 -0700
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:16 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 14:18 +0100
Re: Olcott is provablY correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:25 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 09:30 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 08:48 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 10:12 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:33 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 16:36 +0200
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:00 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 10:22 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:34 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:05 +0200
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 01:37 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:48 -0500
Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 15:58 -0400
Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 02:05 +0100
Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 02:03 +0100
Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 03:22 +0100
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike makes sure to never pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 21:36 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 16:44 +0100
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:50 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:00 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 18:06 +0200
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 17:13 +0100
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:19 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-10-15 12:14 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 12:28 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-10-15 14:06 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:11 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-10-15 14:53 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 11:50 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:19 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:28 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:46 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:57 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:04 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:27 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 14:31 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:47 -0400
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) [better wording] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:54 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) [better wording] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 17:58 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct [ strawman deception ] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 12:08 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:40 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 07:05 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:17 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:26 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:48 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:55 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:02 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:19 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 14:26 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:32 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:50 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 16:30 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 15:36 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 22:46 +0200
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 15:51 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 21:55 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:05 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 23:13 +0200
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:49 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 23:54 +0200
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 17:02 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 18:35 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 17:53 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 20:20 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 19:28 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 02:35 +0200
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:45 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:01 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 21:22 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:43 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 22:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 11:57 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 07:11 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 08:00 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 14:03 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 12:37 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-16 11:51 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:00 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 12:21 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 18:33 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 12:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 19:43 +0200
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 14:30 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 21:38 +0200
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 15:41 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-16 18:23 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 19:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 18:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 20:53 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-16 20:05 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 21:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:56 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 11:24 -0700
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 14:14 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 15:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 20:31 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:47 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 14:53 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 20:39 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:49 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:05 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 21:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:50 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 22:11 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 11:58 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 14:02 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-16 07:19 -0600
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 09:39 -0500
Re: Olcott's business degree Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 16:20 +0100
Re: Olcott's business degree olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 10:26 -0500
Re: Olcott's business degree Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:44 -0400
Re: Olcott's business degree Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-16 12:21 -0600
Re: Olcott's business degree André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-16 10:16 -0600
Re: Olcott's business degree Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 18:22 +0200
Re: Olcott's business degree olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 11:34 -0500
Re: Olcott's business degree Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 18:58 +0200
Re: Olcott's business degree André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-17 20:50 -0600
Re: Olcott's business degree Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-18 03:58 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 08:17 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 07:52 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 12:43 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 12:18 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:46 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 13:53 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 09:51 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 01:36 +0200
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 18:48 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 18:33 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 17:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 22:56 +0200
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:42 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 22:49 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 23:51 +0200
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:56 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 16:03 -0700
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 18:36 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 18:03 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 16:06 -0700
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 20:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 16:55 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:02 -0500
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 17:18 -0400
Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 20:32 +0100
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:31 -0500
Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 07:07 -0400
Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 01:28 +0100
Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:37 -0500
Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-18 16:17 +0100
Re: Olcott is proven to be correct to all those paying attention (hardly any) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 10:37 -0500
Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 02:44 +0100
Re: Olcott is provably correct to anyone that pays attention olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-19 20:51 -0500
Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-19 22:00 -0400
Re: Olcott is proven to be correct. olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-19 22:58 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 10:08 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 12:09 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 07:22 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 06:08 -0700
Re: Turing machines and practical computation Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 14:11 +0000
Re: Turing machines and practical computation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 17:25 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 15:18 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 16:28 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 15:50 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 18:23 -0400
Re: [still about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 18:07 -0500
Re: [still about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 20:16 -0400
Re: [still about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 19:45 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 00:40 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 20:26 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 23:32 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-21 20:09 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 23:07 -0700
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-22 10:06 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 08:45 -0700
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-22 20:05 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-22 16:13 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-24 17:45 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-24 22:46 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-29 18:44 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-29 14:50 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-30 05:19 -0700
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-11-02 20:28 +0000
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-02 18:15 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-11-07 20:54 +0000
Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-07 15:04 -0600
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2022-11-07 18:26 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-07 19:02 -0600
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-21 18:11 -0600
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-21 21:25 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 09:54 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 16:25 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-20 11:05 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 11:09 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 18:36 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 20:18 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 00:52 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-21 02:08 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-20 19:58 -0600
Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 21:08 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-22 01:00 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-22 00:32 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-23 20:34 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-24 00:29 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-21 11:12 +0200
Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 13:04 +0100
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-25 09:29 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-26 06:06 +0200
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-26 10:32 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 08:20 +0200
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 11:16 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 18:46 +0200
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 12:06 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 20:45 +0200
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 13:56 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-27 18:27 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 17:53 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2022-10-27 19:27 -0400
Re: Olcott lies olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:24 -0500
Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 07:11 -0400
Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 13:00 -0700
Re: Olcott lies Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-14 21:04 +0100
Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:33 -0400
Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 14:17 -0700
Re: Olcott lies Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:15 +0200
Re: Olcott corrects Python's notation olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:20 -0500
Re: Olcott corrects Python's notation Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:22 +0200
Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 17:04 -0700
Re: Olcott lies Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:12 +0200
Re: Olcott corrects Pythons notations olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 19:23 -0500
Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:35 -0700
Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 01:44 +0100
Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:04 -0500
Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:27 -0500
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 16:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <tifab2$1vtd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58747 |
On 10/15/2022 4:51 PM, Python wrote: > LIAR Peter Olcott wrote: > .. >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>> 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. >>> >>> This is a tautology (correct => correct), it cannot be used to support >>> the idea that a incorrect simulation, providing the wrong answer, would >>> be right. >> >> The correct halt deciding criteria is the behavior of D correctly >> simulated by H, everyone else disagrees > "correctly simulated", your H does not correctly simulates... > >> and says that it is the behavior of the direct execution of D(D). > > .. even *you* admit that the direct execution of D does not match > your "simulation": different behaviors, different outcomes. > Incorrect means that the execution trace of D by H diverges from the behavior that the x86 source-code specifies. Correct means that the execution trace of D by H precisely corresponds to the behavior that the x86 source-code specifies. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 16:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <2e160b7d-3f3e-4c99-8721-84c04bedd7d4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58749 |
On Sunday, 16 October 2022 at 05:56:53 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > On 10/15/2022 4:51 PM, Python wrote: > > LIAR Peter Olcott wrote: > > .. > >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> This is a tautology (correct => correct), it cannot be used to support > >>> the idea that a incorrect simulation, providing the wrong answer, would > >>> be right. > >> > >> The correct halt deciding criteria is the behavior of D correctly > >> simulated by H, everyone else disagrees > > "correctly simulated", your H does not correctly simulates... > > > >> and says that it is the behavior of the direct execution of D(D). > > > > .. even *you* admit that the direct execution of D does not match > > your "simulation": different behaviors, different outcomes. > > > Incorrect means that the execution trace of D by H diverges from the > behavior that the x86 source-code specifies. > Correct means that the execution trace of D by H precisely corresponds > to the behavior that the x86 source-code specifies. > -- > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott > > "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > Genius hits a target no one else can see." > Arthur Schopenhauer Look at Flibble's invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider), he is one of the most talented software expert.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 18:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <yBG2L.220035$3AK7.94539@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #58744 |
On 10/15/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/15/2022 3:56 PM, Python wrote: >> LIAR Peter Olcott wrote: >>> On 10/15/2022 3:46 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Shameless LIAR Peter Olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and >>>>>>>>>>>>> no more) >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *correct paraphrase of above paragraph* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and >>>>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose the big question is why did you ask him the >>>>>>>>>>>> "Baddly" worded version and not the "Correct" Paraphrase >>>>>>>>>>>> version? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have been working on this for 18 years and know what >>>>>>>>>>>> people cal you out on. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Note, even your paraphrase doesn't meet whqt you have been >>>>>>>>>>>> trying to claim, since you need words that actually change >>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of H to non-aborting in the version called by D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Since H isn't that version, D doesn't actually call it, so >>>>>>>>>>>> you can't use that as your justification. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does the paraphrase meet your objection about H predicting >>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of its complete and correct simulation of D when >>>>>>>>>>> this H does not do a complete and correct simulation of D? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, because that still is looking at an input that isn't the D >>>>>>>>>> that is actually given to it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What if Sipser agrees that it is correct for H to examine what >>>>>>>>> the behavior of D would be if H performed a correct and >>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D? Would you disagree with Professor >>>>>>>>> Sipser on this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF you actually asked him if H could answer for the D built on >>>>>>>> it by looking at a D built on a different H that actually did a >>>>>>>> complete and correct simulation of its input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then he would be agreeing with your proposistion, but He won't >>>>>>>> because he is too smart. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would not use your convoluted words, I would use these words: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its correct and >>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is correct >>>>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a >>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would those words address your objection? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That won't prove your point. >>>>>> >>>>>> H does NOT correctly predict that its corrct and complete >>>>>> simulation of D would never stop running, because this H doesn't >>>>>> DO a correct and complete simulation of D. >>>>>> >>>>> Sufficiently competent software engineers will be able to correctly >>>>> determine that the following proves that Sipser_H does correctly >>>>> predict that its correct and complete simulation of Sipser_D would >>>>> never stop running. >>>>> >>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8 >>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly >>>>> address address data code language >>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin >>>>> Sipser_D >>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push >>>>> Sipser_D >>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push >>>>> Sipser_D >>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call >>>>> Sipser_H >>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped >>>> >>>> Peter, run Sipser_D directly and post its execution trace. You will >>>> notice : >>> >>> *That it is excluded from the Sipser approved criteria* >> >> Pr Sipser did not approved any kind of criteria: you are shamelessly >> lying. >> > > On 10/12/2022 9:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > >> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted > > his halting problem proof? > > > > I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't > > want to share a private conversation, but let's just say > > the exchange went exactly as you would expect. > > > >>> The Sipser approved criteria only refers to the behavior of D >>> correctly simulated by H. It does not refer to the directly executed >>> D(D). >>> >>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>> 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. >> >> This is a tautology (correct => correct), it cannot be used to support >> the idea that a incorrect simulation, providing the wrong answer, would >> be right. > > The correct halt deciding criteria is the behavior of D correctly > simulated by H, everyone else disagrees and says that it is the behavior > of the direct execution of D(D). > So you admit that you aren't working on the Halting Problem, since for THAT the behavior of the direct execution of the program the input represents is what defines the answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 18:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <tife7k$1bln$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58754 |
On 10/15/2022 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/15/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/15/2022 3:56 PM, Python wrote: >>> LIAR Peter Olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/15/2022 3:46 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Shameless LIAR Peter Olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no more) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *correct paraphrase of above paragraph* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose the big question is why did you ask him the >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Baddly" worded version and not the "Correct" Paraphrase >>>>>>>>>>>>> version? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been working on this for 18 years and know what >>>>>>>>>>>>> people cal you out on. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, even your paraphrase doesn't meet whqt you have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to claim, since you need words that actually change >>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of H to non-aborting in the version called by D. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since H isn't that version, D doesn't actually call it, so >>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't use that as your justification. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does the paraphrase meet your objection about H predicting >>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of its complete and correct simulation of D >>>>>>>>>>>> when this H does not do a complete and correct simulation of D? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, because that still is looking at an input that isn't the >>>>>>>>>>> D that is actually given to it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What if Sipser agrees that it is correct for H to examine what >>>>>>>>>> the behavior of D would be if H performed a correct and >>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D? Would you disagree with Professor >>>>>>>>>> Sipser on this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IF you actually asked him if H could answer for the D built on >>>>>>>>> it by looking at a D built on a different H that actually did a >>>>>>>>> complete and correct simulation of its input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then he would be agreeing with your proposistion, but He won't >>>>>>>>> because he is too smart. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would not use your convoluted words, I would use these words: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its correct >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is correct >>>>>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would those words address your objection? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That won't prove your point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H does NOT correctly predict that its corrct and complete >>>>>>> simulation of D would never stop running, because this H doesn't >>>>>>> DO a correct and complete simulation of D. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Sufficiently competent software engineers will be able to >>>>>> correctly determine that the following proves that Sipser_H does >>>>>> correctly predict that its correct and complete simulation of >>>>>> Sipser_D would never stop running. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8 >>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly >>>>>> address address data code language >>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin >>>>>> Sipser_D >>>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push >>>>>> Sipser_D >>>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push >>>>>> Sipser_D >>>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call >>>>>> Sipser_H >>>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped >>>>> >>>>> Peter, run Sipser_D directly and post its execution trace. You will >>>>> notice : >>>> >>>> *That it is excluded from the Sipser approved criteria* >>> >>> Pr Sipser did not approved any kind of criteria: you are shamelessly >>> lying. >>> >> >> On 10/12/2022 9:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> >> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted >> > his halting problem proof? >> > >> > I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't >> > want to share a private conversation, but let's just say >> > the exchange went exactly as you would expect. >> > >> >>>> The Sipser approved criteria only refers to the behavior of D >>>> correctly simulated by H. It does not refer to the directly executed >>>> D(D). >>>> >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>> 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. >>> >>> This is a tautology (correct => correct), it cannot be used to support >>> the idea that a incorrect simulation, providing the wrong answer, would >>> be right. >> >> The correct halt deciding criteria is the behavior of D correctly >> simulated by H, everyone else disagrees and says that it is the >> behavior of the direct execution of D(D). >> > > So you admit that you aren't working on the Halting Problem, Professor Sipser has affirmed that a simulating halt decider H is correct to report on the behavior of D correctly simulated by H. I always knew that an actual computer scientist in the field of the theory of computation that knows these things much deeper than learned-by-rote would affirm that my notion of a simulating halt decider is correct. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 16:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <60c4ce54-307e-4e83-b5d1-5ad6b60bc288n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58756 |
On Sunday, 16 October 2022 at 07:03:18 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > > ... > > So you admit that you aren't working on the Halting Problem, > Professor Sipser has affirmed that a simulating halt decider H is > correct to report on the behavior of D correctly simulated by H. > > I always knew that an actual computer scientist in the field of the > theory of computation that knows these things much deeper than > learned-by-rote would affirm that my notion of a simulating halt decider > is correct. You don't even understand what "P halts" means !!! Flibble's innovative Signaling Simulating Halt Decider might give you some hint.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 20:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <9gI2L.249692$IRd5.84228@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #58756 |
On 10/15/22 7:03 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/15/2022 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/15/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/15/2022 3:56 PM, Python wrote: >>>> LIAR Peter Olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:46 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Shameless LIAR Peter Olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and no more) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *correct paraphrase of above paragraph* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose the big question is why did you ask him the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Baddly" worded version and not the "Correct" Paraphrase >>>>>>>>>>>>>> version? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have been working on this for 18 years and know what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people cal you out on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, even your paraphrase doesn't meet whqt you have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to claim, since you need words that actually change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of H to non-aborting in the version called by D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since H isn't that version, D doesn't actually call it, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't use that as your justification. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the paraphrase meet your objection about H predicting >>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of its complete and correct simulation of D >>>>>>>>>>>>> when this H does not do a complete and correct simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>> of D? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, because that still is looking at an input that isn't the >>>>>>>>>>>> D that is actually given to it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What if Sipser agrees that it is correct for H to examine >>>>>>>>>>> what the behavior of D would be if H performed a correct and >>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D? Would you disagree with Professor >>>>>>>>>>> Sipser on this? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IF you actually asked him if H could answer for the D built on >>>>>>>>>> it by looking at a D built on a different H that actually did >>>>>>>>>> a complete and correct simulation of its input. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then he would be agreeing with your proposistion, but He won't >>>>>>>>>> because he is too smart. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would not use your convoluted words, I would use these words: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its >>>>>>>>> correct and >>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is >>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would those words address your objection? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That won't prove your point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H does NOT correctly predict that its corrct and complete >>>>>>>> simulation of D would never stop running, because this H doesn't >>>>>>>> DO a correct and complete simulation of D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sufficiently competent software engineers will be able to >>>>>>> correctly determine that the following proves that Sipser_H does >>>>>>> correctly predict that its correct and complete simulation of >>>>>>> Sipser_D would never stop running. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8 >>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly >>>>>>> address address data code language >>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin >>>>>>> Sipser_D >>>>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push >>>>>>> Sipser_D >>>>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push >>>>>>> Sipser_D >>>>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call >>>>>>> Sipser_H >>>>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation >>>>>>> Stopped >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter, run Sipser_D directly and post its execution trace. You will >>>>>> notice : >>>>> >>>>> *That it is excluded from the Sipser approved criteria* >>>> >>>> Pr Sipser did not approved any kind of criteria: you are shamelessly >>>> lying. >>>> >>> >>> On 10/12/2022 9:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>> >> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted >>> > his halting problem proof? >>> > >>> > I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't >>> > want to share a private conversation, but let's just say >>> > the exchange went exactly as you would expect. >>> > >>> >>>>> The Sipser approved criteria only refers to the behavior of D >>>>> correctly simulated by H. It does not refer to the directly >>>>> executed D(D). >>>>> >>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> This is a tautology (correct => correct), it cannot be used to support >>>> the idea that a incorrect simulation, providing the wrong answer, would >>>> be right. >>> >>> The correct halt deciding criteria is the behavior of D correctly >>> simulated by H, everyone else disagrees and says that it is the >>> behavior of the direct execution of D(D). >>> >> >> So you admit that you aren't working on the Halting Problem, > > Professor Sipser has affirmed that a simulating halt decider H is > correct to report on the behavior of D correctly simulated by H. Right CORRECTLY SIMULATED which mean that it agrees with the direct execution. So, if your simulation disagrees, it isn't a correct simulation. Thus, it is ALWAYS correct to compare to the direct execution of the input. > > I always knew that an actual computer scientist in the field of the > theory of computation that knows these things much deeper than > learned-by-rote would affirm that my notion of a simulating halt decider > is correct. > Except that he isn't disagree with what we are saying, he is just assuming that you know what the words mean. We know better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 16:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <Q6F2L.87143$1Ly7.73199@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #58731 |
On 10/15/22 4:36 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/15/2022 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/15/22 3:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/15/2022 2:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/15/22 3:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no >>>>>>>>> more) >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *correct paraphrase of above paragraph* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its >>>>>>>>> correct and >>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is >>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suppose the big question is why did you ask him the "Baddly" >>>>>>>> worded version and not the "Correct" Paraphrase version? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have been working on this for 18 years and know what people >>>>>>>> cal you out on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note, even your paraphrase doesn't meet whqt you have been >>>>>>>> trying to claim, since you need words that actually change the >>>>>>>> behavior of H to non-aborting in the version called by D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since H isn't that version, D doesn't actually call it, so you >>>>>>>> can't use that as your justification. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FAIL. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does the paraphrase meet your objection about H predicting the >>>>>>> behavior of its complete and correct simulation of D when this H >>>>>>> does not do a complete and correct simulation of D? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, because that still is looking at an input that isn't the D >>>>>> that is actually given to it. >>>>> >>>>> What if Sipser agrees that it is correct for H to examine what the >>>>> behavior of D would be if H performed a correct and complete >>>>> simulation of D? Would you disagree with Professor Sipser on this? >>>>> >>>> >>>> IF you actually asked him if H could answer for the D built on it by >>>> looking at a D built on a different H that actually did a complete >>>> and correct simulation of its input. >>>> >>>> Then he would be agreeing with your proposistion, but He won't >>>> because he is too smart. >>> >>> I would not use your convoluted words, I would use these words: >>> >>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its correct and >>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is correct >>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a >>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> >>> Would those words address your objection? >>> >> >> That won't prove your point. >> >> H does NOT correctly predict that its corrct and complete simulation >> of D would never stop running, because this H doesn't DO a correct and >> complete simulation of D. >> > Sufficiently competent software engineers will be able to correctly > determine that the following proves that Sipser_H does correctly predict > that its correct and complete simulation of Sipser_D would never stop > running. No, only sufficently STUPID people. You are using your incorrect rule again, which has been disproven. Since we KNOW from the trace and your definition of Sipser_H that Sipser_H will return a 0, thus we KNOW the the ACTUAL correct simulation will at some point simulate a return to the instruction after the call with a 0, and that Sipser_D will then do a return 0. This proves that Sipser_H's logic is incorrect, and that it doesn't actually correctly determine anything. Thus we have proved that if this H somehow did a correct simulation, it would see the halting. This PROVES that your condition is non-sense as this Sipser_H doesn't do a correct and complete simulation of its input, and thus has lost its method of it determining a correct answer. You logic imagines a Sipser_H that doesn't actually exist in this program, and a Sipser_D that doesn't exist either, and answers about those mythological programs. Sometimes I wonder if I should point out your ramblings to the university you graduated from and see if they think they should pull your diploma as you clearly didn't learn what you should have. > > Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8 > machine stack stack machine assembly > address address data code language > ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= > [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D > [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D > [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D > [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H > Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped > > YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 16:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <tif75o$pbr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58735 |
On 10/15/2022 3:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/15/22 4:36 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/15/2022 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/15/22 3:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/15/2022 2:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/15/22 3:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no >>>>>>>>>> more) >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *correct paraphrase of above paragraph* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its >>>>>>>>>> correct and >>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is >>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suppose the big question is why did you ask him the "Baddly" >>>>>>>>> worded version and not the "Correct" Paraphrase version? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have been working on this for 18 years and know what people >>>>>>>>> cal you out on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note, even your paraphrase doesn't meet whqt you have been >>>>>>>>> trying to claim, since you need words that actually change the >>>>>>>>> behavior of H to non-aborting in the version called by D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since H isn't that version, D doesn't actually call it, so you >>>>>>>>> can't use that as your justification. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> FAIL. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does the paraphrase meet your objection about H predicting the >>>>>>>> behavior of its complete and correct simulation of D when this H >>>>>>>> does not do a complete and correct simulation of D? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, because that still is looking at an input that isn't the D >>>>>>> that is actually given to it. >>>>>> >>>>>> What if Sipser agrees that it is correct for H to examine what the >>>>>> behavior of D would be if H performed a correct and complete >>>>>> simulation of D? Would you disagree with Professor Sipser on this? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IF you actually asked him if H could answer for the D built on it >>>>> by looking at a D built on a different H that actually did a >>>>> complete and correct simulation of its input. >>>>> >>>>> Then he would be agreeing with your proposistion, but He won't >>>>> because he is too smart. >>>> >>>> I would not use your convoluted words, I would use these words: >>>> >>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its correct and >>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is correct >>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a >>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>> >>>> Would those words address your objection? >>>> >>> >>> That won't prove your point. >>> >>> H does NOT correctly predict that its corrct and complete simulation >>> of D would never stop running, because this H doesn't DO a correct >>> and complete simulation of D. >>> >> Sufficiently competent software engineers will be able to correctly >> determine that the following proves that Sipser_H does correctly >> predict that its correct and complete simulation of Sipser_D would >> never stop running. > > No, only sufficently STUPID people. > > You are using your incorrect rule again, which has been disproven. > You have already agreed that it is correct. On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D > based on it is non-halting. >> >> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8 >> machine stack stack machine assembly >> address address data code language >> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D >> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D >> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D >> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H >> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped >> >> > > YOU FAIL. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 17:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <1tF2L.87146$1Ly7.41979@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #58739 |
On 10/15/22 5:02 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/15/2022 3:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/15/22 4:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/15/2022 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/15/22 3:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no >>>>>>>>>>> more) >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *correct paraphrase of above paragraph* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its >>>>>>>>>>> correct and >>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is >>>>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I suppose the big question is why did you ask him the "Baddly" >>>>>>>>>> worded version and not the "Correct" Paraphrase version? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You have been working on this for 18 years and know what >>>>>>>>>> people cal you out on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Note, even your paraphrase doesn't meet whqt you have been >>>>>>>>>> trying to claim, since you need words that actually change the >>>>>>>>>> behavior of H to non-aborting in the version called by D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since H isn't that version, D doesn't actually call it, so you >>>>>>>>>> can't use that as your justification. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> FAIL. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does the paraphrase meet your objection about H predicting the >>>>>>>>> behavior of its complete and correct simulation of D when this >>>>>>>>> H does not do a complete and correct simulation of D? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, because that still is looking at an input that isn't the D >>>>>>>> that is actually given to it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What if Sipser agrees that it is correct for H to examine what >>>>>>> the behavior of D would be if H performed a correct and complete >>>>>>> simulation of D? Would you disagree with Professor Sipser on this? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IF you actually asked him if H could answer for the D built on it >>>>>> by looking at a D built on a different H that actually did a >>>>>> complete and correct simulation of its input. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then he would be agreeing with your proposistion, but He won't >>>>>> because he is too smart. >>>>> >>>>> I would not use your convoluted words, I would use these words: >>>>> >>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its correct and >>>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is correct >>>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a >>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>> >>>>> Would those words address your objection? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That won't prove your point. >>>> >>>> H does NOT correctly predict that its corrct and complete simulation >>>> of D would never stop running, because this H doesn't DO a correct >>>> and complete simulation of D. >>>> >>> Sufficiently competent software engineers will be able to correctly >>> determine that the following proves that Sipser_H does correctly >>> predict that its correct and complete simulation of Sipser_D would >>> never stop running. >> >> No, only sufficently STUPID people. >> >> You are using your incorrect rule again, which has been disproven. >> > > You have already agreed that it is correct. > > On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one > > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D > > based on it is non-halting. > So, you are stipulationg that THIS H NEVER aborts its simulation? That is a LIE, as it does so it can return an answer. See your trace below, it ABORTED its simultion. Thus, the statement doesn't apply. You don't seem to understand even basic English words. Or, are you admitting that you have lied about D being built by the rules, that it uses a copy of the H that is supposed to decide about it. Then you have lied about working on the Problem. YOU FAIL. > >>> >>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8 >>> machine stack stack machine assembly >>> address address data code language >>> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D >>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D >>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D >>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H >>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped >>> >>> >> >> YOU FAIL. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 20:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) |
| Message-ID | <20221015203253.0000693c@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58717 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 15:19:27 -0400 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > On 10/15/22 3:02 PM, olcott wrote: > > On 10/15/2022 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >> On 10/15/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > >>> > >>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no > >>> more) 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. > >>> > >>> *correct paraphrase of above paragraph* > >>> > >>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its correct > >>> and complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is > >>> correct to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D > >>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > >> > >> I suppose the big question is why did you ask him the "Baddly" > >> worded version and not the "Correct" Paraphrase version? > >> > >> You have been working on this for 18 years and know what people > >> cal you out on. > >> > >> Note, even your paraphrase doesn't meet whqt you have been trying > >> to claim, since you need words that actually change the behavior > >> of H to non-aborting in the version called by D. > >> > >> Since H isn't that version, D doesn't actually call it, so you > >> can't use that as your justification. > >> > >> FAIL. > > > > Does the paraphrase meet your objection about H predicting the > > behavior of its complete and correct simulation of D when this H > > does not do a complete and correct simulation of D? > > > > No, because that still is looking at an input that isn't the D that > is actually given to it. > > Since H DOESN'T actually do a complete and correct simulation of its > input, anything dependent on it doing one is incorrect. > > You need to learn that the input must be processed AS GIVEN, > INCLUDING the behavior of the H therein must match the behavior of > the H that is giving the answer. There is no such requirement that the behavior of H being called by D be the same as the H providing the answer; the only requirement is that a correct halting decision is given based on the full and correct simulation of D and that H being called by D gives a decision result to D: the ONLY correct way of doing this is by doing what the Flibble Signaling Decider does and fork the simulation having H return 0 *AND* 1 to D in each fork, only then will you have a complete and correct simulation of D. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 00:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) |
| Message-ID | <tiipbv$3cg9h$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58692 |
On 10/15/2022 10:44 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 15/10/2022 03:36, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2022 9:22 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 15/10/2022 02:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/10/2022 18:23, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H
>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>> running
>>>>>> [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to
>>>>>> simulate" and
>>>>>> "correctly simulate"]
>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>> In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be
>>>>>> right".
>>>>>> But the simulation is not right. D actually halts.
>>>>>> And Peter Olcott is f*g disgusting liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> [tldr; perhaps think "idiot" rather than "liar"?]
>>>> <cut>
>>>>> It's all reflected in this thread - as you say, Sipser is simply
>>>>> agreeing to a tautology THAT NOBODY HERE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH as
>>>>> far as I can recall
>>>>
>>>> Well I disagree with it, and I don't think it's a tautology. It's a
>>>> bit
>>>> vague and deceptive, but anyone following the history should know that
>>>> he's saying that H's incorrect answer is really correct because a
>>>> /different/ computation /does/ halt. It's just the latest iteration of
>>>> "it's right because of what would happen if line 15 were commented out"
>>>> and any agreement with it will bolster PO's delusion that he is on to
>>>> something.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know all that. I think possibly you've misread what I was
>>> saying or the larger context, or I didn't say clearly enough what I
>>> meant. Let's see...
>>>
>>> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about
>>> what Sipser agreed with.
>>>
>>> [What Sipser agreed, copied from above]
>>> >>> 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.
>>>
>>> To my mind, *Sipser* is agreeing that *IF* H simulates D until H
>>> *CORRECTLY* determines that the simultion of D would never terminate,
>>> then H reporting "not halting" is the correct result for a halt
>>> decider. I believe D is just being considered as an input that the
>>> simulating halt decider is examining, and nothing more... (not as a
>>> specific input, although it's logically still ok even if D is the
>>> "paradoxical" input, since then the IF clause will never be true, but
>>> I can't think that's what Sipser would be thinking.)
>>
>> int D(ptr2 M)
>> {
>> if ( H(M, M) )
>> return 0;
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>> address address data code language
>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>
>> Mike may not know software engineering well enough to see that the D
>> correctly simulated by H continues to remain stuck in recursive
>> simulation until H recognizes this repeating pattern and aborts its
>> simulation of D.
>
> Wrong - If D is simulated further, it terminates all on its own.
>
Everyone that knows the x86 language very well knows that the D
correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state.
> That you think otherwise is just a reflection on you lacking the ability
> to think properly. You are getting confused, because you imagine
> changing H to remove its abort statement, but you forget (or willfully
> ignore) the fact that in doing this you are also changing the input D,
> which contains its own copy of H. I.e. when you go on to say D doesn't
> halt, the "D" you refer to is a different input to H from the D we are
> examining above.
>
> Lots of people have explained this to you, multiple times.
>
> Mike.
>
>
>
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 07:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) |
| Message-ID | <hIa3L.778385$BKL8.715195@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #58859 |
On 10/17/22 1:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/15/2022 10:44 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 15/10/2022 03:36, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2022 9:22 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 15/10/2022 02:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/10/2022 18:23, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>> until H
>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>> [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser
>>>>>>> has been
>>>>>>> fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to
>>>>>>> simulate" and
>>>>>>> "correctly simulate"]
>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>> In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be
>>>>>>> right".
>>>>>>> But the simulation is not right. D actually halts.
>>>>>>> And Peter Olcott is f*g disgusting liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [tldr; perhaps think "idiot" rather than "liar"?]
>>>>> <cut>
>>>>>> It's all reflected in this thread - as you say, Sipser is simply
>>>>>> agreeing to a tautology THAT NOBODY HERE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH as
>>>>>> far as I can recall
>>>>>
>>>>> Well I disagree with it, and I don't think it's a tautology. It's
>>>>> a bit
>>>>> vague and deceptive, but anyone following the history should know that
>>>>> he's saying that H's incorrect answer is really correct because a
>>>>> /different/ computation /does/ halt. It's just the latest
>>>>> iteration of
>>>>> "it's right because of what would happen if line 15 were commented
>>>>> out"
>>>>> and any agreement with it will bolster PO's delusion that he is on to
>>>>> something.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know all that. I think possibly you've misread what I was
>>>> saying or the larger context, or I didn't say clearly enough what I
>>>> meant. Let's see...
>>>>
>>>> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely
>>>> about what Sipser agreed with.
>>>>
>>>> [What Sipser agreed, copied from above]
>>>> >>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> To my mind, *Sipser* is agreeing that *IF* H simulates D until H
>>>> *CORRECTLY* determines that the simultion of D would never
>>>> terminate, then H reporting "not halting" is the correct result for
>>>> a halt decider. I believe D is just being considered as an input
>>>> that the simulating halt decider is examining, and nothing more...
>>>> (not as a specific input, although it's logically still ok even if D
>>>> is the "paradoxical" input, since then the IF clause will never be
>>>> true, but I can't think that's what Sipser would be thinking.)
>>>
>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>> {
>>> if ( H(M, M) )
>>> return 0;
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>>> address address data code language
>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>
>>> Mike may not know software engineering well enough to see that the D
>>> correctly simulated by H continues to remain stuck in recursive
>>> simulation until H recognizes this repeating pattern and aborts its
>>> simulation of D.
>>
>> Wrong - If D is simulated further, it terminates all on its own.
>>
>
> Everyone that knows the x86 language very well knows that the D
> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final state.
Nope, since directly running D shows that it will return 1, means that a
correct simulation of it will reach the final state.
An H that does a complete simulation would see that for THIS input,
which is the D built on the original H, that aborts its simulation, the
complete simulation will reach a final state.
You are just proving you don't understand what the words actually mean.
>
>> That you think otherwise is just a reflection on you lacking the
>> ability to think properly. You are getting confused, because you
>> imagine changing H to remove its abort statement, but you forget (or
>> willfully ignore) the fact that in doing this you are also changing
>> the input D, which contains its own copy of H. I.e. when you go on to
>> say D doesn't halt, the "D" you refer to is a different input to H
>> from the D we are examining above.
>>
>> Lots of people have explained this to you, multiple times.
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-16 01:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878rlgobmt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #58637 |
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> On 15/10/2022 02:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 14/10/2022 18:23, Python wrote:
>>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>> [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has been
>>>> fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" and
>>>> "correctly simulate"]
>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be
>>>> right".
>>>> But the simulation is not right. D actually halts.
>>>> And Peter Olcott is f*g disgusting liar.
>>>
>>> [tldr; perhaps think "idiot" rather than "liar"?]
>> <cut>
>>> It's all reflected in this thread - as you say, Sipser is simply
>>> agreeing to a tautology THAT NOBODY HERE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH as
>>> far as I can recall
>>
>> Well I disagree with it, and I don't think it's a tautology. It's a bit
>> vague and deceptive, but anyone following the history should know that
>> he's saying that H's incorrect answer is really correct because a
>> /different/ computation /does/ halt. It's just the latest iteration of
>> "it's right because of what would happen if line 15 were commented out"
>> and any agreement with it will bolster PO's delusion that he is on to
>> something.
>
> Yes, I know all that. I think possibly you've misread what I was
> saying or the larger context, or I didn't say clearly enough what I
> meant. Let's see...
>
> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about
> what Sipser agreed with.
OK, but I think (if replying to PO) we /should/ be talking about what PO
writes.
> [What Sipser agreed, copied from above]
>>>> 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.
>
> To my mind, *Sipser* is agreeing that *IF* H simulates D until H
> *CORRECTLY* determines that the simultion of D would never terminate,
> then H reporting "not halting" is the correct result for a halt
> decider.
I know (from his email) that he was agreeing to what seemed like an
innocuous truth.
But that's how the trickery works. Make it look like a trivial remark
and hope that no one notices that the reader is being asked to confirm
that the answer can be determined why what /would/ happen rather than
what /does/ happen.
The thing is, Sipser's book discusses halting partly in terms of
simulation. He shows that A_TM[1] is Turing-recognizable with the simple
simulation argument. He then remarks that if the TM had a way to
determine that M was not halting it would be a decider.
Part of Sipser's reported reply was, I think, something like "Thanks for
checking" so I would hazard a guess that PO presented his nonsense in
such a way that it just looked like a request to confirm that remark
from the book.
> I believe D is just being considered as an input that the
> simulating halt decider is examining, and nothing more... (not as a
> specific input, although it's logically still ok even if D is the
> "paradoxical" input, since then the IF clause will never be true, but
> I can't think that's what Sipser would be thinking.)
But I am not so sure about this part. Sipser uses the name D for the TM
constructed from H and PO changed his terms so that D would be
recognisable. I have no idea whether Sipser took the name D to be
generic or to be his construction, but /we/ know what PO meant. We know
what PO was hoping to get apparent agreement about.
> Well, given H simulates correctly, and CORRECTLY determines D would
> never stop running, what's to disagree with?
We should disagree with what he wrote, and not agree with what we
suppose someone else thought he meant!
What he wrote was /not/ this simple truism. What he wrote encapsulates
more than four years of tossing the word salad to find as innocuous a
way as possible to say that he's redefined what "non halting" means. It
is the very heart of what PO is trying to get away with.
I don't think anyone should be saying "that's just a tautology" or "or
course we all agree with this". (BTW, I know that's not what you said).
The trouble is that saying, as I take you to have said, "we all agree
with what reasonable people might assume you meant" is not really very
helpful.
> Would you agree with this expanded description of what I think Sipser
> agreed with perhaps?
Of course. In fact I know it to be the case from his email to me.
But we should take every opportunity to object to this now oft-quoted
"criterion" because we know what "correctly determines that its
simulated D would never stop running unless aborted" really means. It
means that "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
[is non-halting]". That "would" and "unless" and "can" are crucial, as
is the fact that D is the name of the confounding TM, built from H.
> Nobody is suggesting Sipser said anything supporting PO's position!
Well, I think PO is suggesting exactly that. Why else would he care
what some professor says?
> I'd stand by my remark that nobody here would disagree with my
> interpretation of what Sipser agreed to. So it's added nothing to the
> debate, although it's confused PO probably.
Sure, but PO cares about what the words he wrote meant in the context of
his 18 wasted years. He cares that someone appears to agree with a
criterion that includes
"every element of the conventional halting problem set of non-halting
computations and a few more."
> Secondary question, probably irrelevant due to larger
> misunderstandings:
>
> Is it a /tautology/ that "H CORRECTLY determining that D's simulation
> will never halt means that the correct response (for a halt decider)
> is NOTHALT" ? Talking non-technically, I would call that a tautology,
> because with a little rephrasing it's saying nothing more than "if D's
> simulation never halts then D never halts", which doesn't seem worth
> saying.
I have used the term "truism" because I think that is close enough
without getting into the technical definitions.
> OK, it's not technically a tautology, because D's simulation not
> halting is not the same proposition as D not halting - the meanings
> are different; but everyone knows without further comment that D's
> simulation tracks the D computation and so either they both halt or
> they both fail to halt. That's essentially contained in the word
> "simulation".
>
> If that's all you meant by "I don't think it's a tautology" I'd agree,
> but I'm confident we diverged at a much higher level than this. :)
Absolutely it's more than that: the main divergence seems to be that you
are talking about what someone reasonable might have taken PO to mean
where I am talking about PO actually wrote.
Do you agree that the actual words, as best we can understand them given
PO's lack of technical writing skills, re-defines non-halting so H can
report "non-halting" for a halting computation due to what would happen
if H did not do what it actually does?
>> (As it happens, PO is so bad at writing that he has in fact paraphrased
>> his own words as a simply tautology, but the version in question has the
>> clear "would" ... "unless" giveaway phrase.)
>
> Right, but Sipser doesn't have a clue about any of that - I'm sure he
> is just agreeing to the obvious (almost) tautological interpretation
> of the paragraph.
Well, anyone reading the words has the clues that are in the words. If
I had seen the paragraph out of the blue, I would not assume it was
saying what you think reasonable readers might think it was saying.
That's because the truism is so much simpler to state. When someone
adds words that suggest hypotheticals and talks about what an algorithm
"can do" in such hypothetical cases, I get very suspicious. But then
I've been reading Usenet cranks for the last few years while the good
Professor has been teaching classes of bright students. He has no
reason to be suspicious.
My own TL;DR...
My point was that people /here/ should not act as if PO meant some bland
truism. They should read what he actually wrote and critique that,
because that is what PO will claim has been agreed to: the claim about a
D constructed from H, but where H's decision is be based on what would
happen if H did not do what it actually does. His words encapsulate
exactly the ruse he is trying to pull.
[1] A_TM = { <M.w> | M is a TM and M accepts w }
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 20:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott proves that he is correct |
| Message-ID | <tifn95$2v85g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58763 |
On 10/15/2022 7:28 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > >> On 15/10/2022 02:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 14/10/2022 18:23, Python wrote: >>>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria: >>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>> [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has been >>>>> fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" and >>>>> "correctly simulate"] >>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>> In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be >>>>> right". >>>>> But the simulation is not right. D actually halts. >>>>> And Peter Olcott is f*g disgusting liar. >>>> >>>> [tldr; perhaps think "idiot" rather than "liar"?] >>> <cut> >>>> It's all reflected in this thread - as you say, Sipser is simply >>>> agreeing to a tautology THAT NOBODY HERE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH as >>>> far as I can recall >>> >>> Well I disagree with it, and I don't think it's a tautology. It's a bit >>> vague and deceptive, but anyone following the history should know that >>> he's saying that H's incorrect answer is really correct because a >>> /different/ computation /does/ halt. It's just the latest iteration of >>> "it's right because of what would happen if line 15 were commented out" >>> and any agreement with it will bolster PO's delusion that he is on to >>> something. >> >> Yes, I know all that. I think possibly you've misread what I was >> saying or the larger context, or I didn't say clearly enough what I >> meant. Let's see... >> >> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about >> what Sipser agreed with. > > OK, but I think (if replying to PO) we /should/ be talking about what PO > writes. > >> [What Sipser agreed, copied from above] >>>>> 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. >> >> To my mind, *Sipser* is agreeing that *IF* H simulates D until H >> *CORRECTLY* determines that the simultion of D would never terminate, >> then H reporting "not halting" is the correct result for a halt >> decider. > > I know (from his email) that he was agreeing to what seemed like an > innocuous truth. > > But that's how the trickery works. Make it look like a trivial remark > and hope that no one notices that the reader is being asked to confirm > that the answer can be determined why what /would/ happen rather than > what /does/ happen. > > The thing is, Sipser's book discusses halting partly in terms of > simulation. He shows that A_TM[1] is Turing-recognizable with the simple > simulation argument. He then remarks that if the TM had a way to > determine that M was not halting it would be a decider. > > Part of Sipser's reported reply was, I think, something like "Thanks for > checking" so I would hazard a guess that PO presented his nonsense in > such a way that it just looked like a request to confirm that remark > from the book. > >> I believe D is just being considered as an input that the >> simulating halt decider is examining, and nothing more... (not as a >> specific input, although it's logically still ok even if D is the >> "paradoxical" input, since then the IF clause will never be true, but >> I can't think that's what Sipser would be thinking.) > > But I am not so sure about this part. Sipser uses the name D for the TM > constructed from H and PO changed his terms so that D would be > recognisable. I have no idea whether Sipser took the name D to be > generic or to be his construction, but /we/ know what PO meant. We know > what PO was hoping to get apparent agreement about. > <Sipser approved abstract> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper): 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. </Sipser approved abstract> to this paper: *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof Is this correct paraphrase of above paragraph clearer? If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its correct and complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is correct to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 16:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <timg1e$1mpa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58763 |
On 16/10/2022 01:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
>> On 15/10/2022 02:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 14/10/2022 18:23, Python wrote:
The general "take home" message I get from your reply, is that as expected you do agree with what I
meant [*] (and I thought I actually said), although perhaps you think what I said was not helpful.
As I was not trying to help PO, and as what I said was addressed to Python, and just a quick note on
PO's behaviour to illustrate a point I was making [that PO habitually misunderstands practically
everything that anybody says to him], I don't see there's much more here worthy of our time.
(Thanks for your thoughts though, and I've responded in several places below...)
Background: I wrote this response before I'd read your thread suggesting curtailing our responses to
PO. That might have superseded some of what I said below, but I can't bring myself to go through
this again and check, so I'm just posting it.
Mike.
[*] >>
>> To my mind, *Sipser* is agreeing that *IF* H simulates D until H
>> *CORRECTLY* determines that the simultion of D would never terminate,
>> then H reporting "not halting" is the correct result for a halt
>> decider.
>>>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>> [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has been
>>>>> fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" and
>>>>> "correctly simulate"]
>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>> In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be
>>>>> right".
>>>>> But the simulation is not right. D actually halts.
>>>>> And Peter Olcott is f*g disgusting liar.
>>>>
>>>> [tldr; perhaps think "idiot" rather than "liar"?]
>>> <cut>
>>>> It's all reflected in this thread - as you say, Sipser is simply
>>>> agreeing to a tautology THAT NOBODY HERE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH as
>>>> far as I can recall
>>>
>>> Well I disagree with it, and I don't think it's a tautology. It's a bit
>>> vague and deceptive, but anyone following the history should know that
>>> he's saying that H's incorrect answer is really correct because a
>>> /different/ computation /does/ halt. It's just the latest iteration of
>>> "it's right because of what would happen if line 15 were commented out"
>>> and any agreement with it will bolster PO's delusion that he is on to
>>> something.
>>
>> Yes, I know all that. I think possibly you've misread what I was
>> saying or the larger context, or I didn't say clearly enough what I
>> meant. Let's see...
>>
>> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about
>> what Sipser agreed with.
>
> OK, but I think (if replying to PO) we /should/ be talking about what PO
> writes.
I get the idea, but also PO writes "[Sipser agrees with /my interpretation/ of blah blah
subjunctive blah blah subjunctive blah blah]". It seems reasonable for posters to put PO right on
that point. Otherwise whatever anyone says to PO, he will just keep reposting his "Sipser support"
mantra, convinced in his own mind he is answering the points people make to him. Like the way he
keeps reposting his trace output, as though that is addressing the points people are making! That
will go on forever as well, unless anyone can convince PO that the trace DOESN'T MEAN WHAT PO
CURRENTLY BELIEVES IT MEANS.
Hmm, another approach I suppose might be to simply refuse to take on board any mentioning by PO of
Sipser. on the grounds that Sipser isn't here, so he's not part of the discussion. That leaves PO's
interpretation of Sipser unchallenged, but hey maybe he'll just get fed up in time when he sees it's
"not working".
You probably know my main position is that people are wasting their time trying to educate PO or
strip his delusions from him. In that sense, NO post here is "helpful".
>
>> [What Sipser agreed, copied from above]
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> To my mind, *Sipser* is agreeing that *IF* H simulates D until H
>> *CORRECTLY* determines that the simultion of D would never terminate,
>> then H reporting "not halting" is the correct result for a halt
>> decider.
>
> I know (from his email) that he was agreeing to what seemed like an
> innocuous truth.
>
> But that's how the trickery works. Make it look like a trivial remark
> and hope that no one notices that the reader is being asked to confirm
> that the answer can be determined why what /would/ happen rather than
> what /does/ happen.
Yes, he did a similar trick with the x86.asm group, getting someone there to post saying his program
was looping.
The problem for PO is that yes, he can "trick" people, but it doesn't do him the slightest good
here, unless you include irritating posters (including myself) into a flurry of posts essentially
informing PO that his trick has changed nothing. If PO wants to argue something here, he needs to
argue it here himself, not claim someone elsewhere supports him in some way therefore we're "not
allowed" to disagree. That has never worked on people here!
>
> The thing is, Sipser's book discusses halting partly in terms of
> simulation. He shows that A_TM[1] is Turing-recognizable with the simple
> simulation argument. He then remarks that if the TM had a way to
> determine that M was not halting it would be a decider.
>
> Part of Sipser's reported reply was, I think, something like "Thanks for
> checking" so I would hazard a guess that PO presented his nonsense in
> such a way that it just looked like a request to confirm that remark
> from the book.
>
>> I believe D is just being considered as an input that the
>> simulating halt decider is examining, and nothing more... (not as a
>> specific input, although it's logically still ok even if D is the
>> "paradoxical" input, since then the IF clause will never be true, but
>> I can't think that's what Sipser would be thinking.)
>
> But I am not so sure about this part. Sipser uses the name D for the TM
> constructed from H and PO changed his terms so that D would be
> recognisable. I have no idea whether Sipser took the name D to be
> generic or to be his construction, but /we/ know what PO meant. We know
> what PO was hoping to get apparent agreement about.
Yes, I'm not really sure what Sipser thought D was either.
>
>> Well, given H simulates correctly, and CORRECTLY determines D would
>> never stop running, what's to disagree with?
>
> We should disagree with what he wrote, and not agree with what we
> suppose someone else thought he meant!
>
> What he wrote was /not/ this simple truism. What he wrote encapsulates
> more than four years of tossing the word salad to find as innocuous a
> way as possible to say that he's redefined what "non halting" means. It
> is the very heart of what PO is trying to get away with.
>
> I don't think anyone should be saying "that's just a tautology" or "or
> course we all agree with this". (BTW, I know that's not what you said).
> The trouble is that saying, as I take you to have said, "we all agree
> with what reasonable people might assume you meant" is not really very
> helpful.
Of course, if I said that to PO (which I didn't) it would not help him, which wouldn't bother me
tbh. It was addressed to Python, as a brief supporting note on PO's behaviour, confirming PO's lack
of understanding of what other people tell him, and his general delusional state etc.. It seemed to
me Python might be becoming increasingly wound up by PO's lack of taking on board points raised by
himself and others generally. But if your viewpoint shifts to seeing PO as mentally damaged, and
literally /incapable/ of understanding those points and posters arguments generally, then it's
clearly quite pointless becoming annoyed with "just how PO is". (And also pointless spending
significant time explaining stuff to him.)
>
>> Would you agree with this expanded description of what I think Sipser
>> agreed with perhaps?
>
> Of course. In fact I know it to be the case from his email to me.
>
> But we should take every opportunity to object to this now oft-quoted
> "criterion" because we know what "correctly determines that its
> simulated D would never stop running unless aborted" really means. It
> means that "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> [is non-halting]". That "would" and "unless" and "can" are crucial, as
> is the fact that D is the name of the confounding TM, built from H.
I agree that PO's wording is quite unacceptable within any kind of logical argument, and generally
with you're interpretation of what PO is really saying. But someone who is "taking every
opportunity to object to this..." is unfortunately going to be wasting a significant chunk of their
life doing so, as he says it all the time!
I don't believe he's capable of understanding /why/ what he's doing is logically wrong, so I don't
see anything changing on this front. So my stance would be to just let him get on with it and
ultimately fail in all his goals. I actually /like/ helping people who can be helped, but don't
believe PO can be helped on these matters, or that anyone here is actually helping him, even if PO
believes he is "making progress".
>
>> Nobody is suggesting Sipser said anything supporting PO's position!
>
> Well, I think PO is suggesting exactly that. Why else would he care
> what some professor says?
Yes, I should have included "apart from PO"... :)
>
>> I'd stand by my remark that nobody here would disagree with my
>> interpretation of what Sipser agreed to. So it's added nothing to the
>> debate, although it's confused PO probably.
>
> Sure, but PO cares about what the words he wrote meant in the context of
> his 18 wasted years. He cares that someone appears to agree with a
> criterion that includes
>
> "every element of the conventional halting problem set of non-halting
> computations and a few more."
>
>> Secondary question, probably irrelevant due to larger
>> misunderstandings:
>>
>> Is it a /tautology/ that "H CORRECTLY determining that D's simulation
>> will never halt means that the correct response (for a halt decider)
>> is NOTHALT" ? Talking non-technically, I would call that a tautology,
>> because with a little rephrasing it's saying nothing more than "if D's
>> simulation never halts then D never halts", which doesn't seem worth
>> saying.
>
> I have used the term "truism" because I think that is close enough
> without getting into the technical definitions.
Sure, that sounds better.
>
>> OK, it's not technically a tautology, because D's simulation not
>> halting is not the same proposition as D not halting - the meanings
>> are different; but everyone knows without further comment that D's
>> simulation tracks the D computation and so either they both halt or
>> they both fail to halt. That's essentially contained in the word
>> "simulation".
>>
>> If that's all you meant by "I don't think it's a tautology" I'd agree,
>> but I'm confident we diverged at a much higher level than this. :)
>
> Absolutely it's more than that: the main divergence seems to be that you
> are talking about what someone reasonable might have taken PO to mean
> where I am talking about PO actually wrote.
>
> Do you agree that the actual words, as best we can understand them given
> PO's lack of technical writing skills, re-defines non-halting so H can
> report "non-halting" for a halting computation due to what would happen
> if H did not do what it actually does?
tl;dr : I'll say more or less "yes", but I don't think things are quite that simple..
I don't think we could get PO to clarify his words to anything that has a precise meaning. So in
some ways, I'd say suggesting that PO is "really" thinking something that is *coherent* but
different from the actual problem statement [POOH or whatever], is giving too much credit to PO.
I'd agree that the effect of all those subjunctives etc. is that PO is able to justify to himself
his intuition that basically H is employing correct logic, and therefore is by definition reaching
the "correct" conclusion. [Despite disagreeing with the obvious HP reality of D(D) actually halting
etc.] I'd agree that this involves PO leaving behind the actual definition of halting, and that to
reach the conclusion he reaches, he must consider what code does if it did something other than what
it does.
To be fair, if PO viewed "what the simulation by H would do if not aborted" as replacing the outer H
simulating P(D) with UTM(P,D) behaviour, that would not lead him far astray. The point being that
UTM(P,D) HAS THE SAME INPUT as H(P,D) so we are still talking about the halt status for input (P,D),
not (UTM, UTM) or whatever. Looking at it this way, we could just as well say the "real" mistake PO
is making is the CHANGING OF INPUT being considered /as a result of/ considering what H would do if
H did not do what it does. And that mistake might not have happened if PO's computing architecture
actually properly distinguished code (of H or D fed via his OBJ file to utmx86) from data (machine
/descriptions/ and other "tape data" which are "inputs" read by the program code.
But you know what? PO's thinking about the whole thing is totally muddled - not clear at any level
- and insisting his mistake is specifically one coherent thing doesn't really work for me. (Although
I reckon I've mostly agreed with your specific points...)
As you've often said - it's enough that P(D,D) returns NotHalt, while D(D) actually halts. Knowing
more about /why/ PO believes his claims, is of some interest, but in the end not enough to waste a
/lot/ of time on, given that nobody will succeed in convincing PO he is wrong...
>
>>> (As it happens, PO is so bad at writing that he has in fact paraphrased
>>> his own words as a simply tautology, but the version in question has the
>>> clear "would" ... "unless" giveaway phrase.)
>>
>> Right, but Sipser doesn't have a clue about any of that - I'm sure he
>> is just agreeing to the obvious (almost) tautological interpretation
>> of the paragraph.
>
> Well, anyone reading the words has the clues that are in the words. If
> I had seen the paragraph out of the blue, I would not assume it was
> saying what you think reasonable readers might think it was saying.
> That's because the truism is so much simpler to state. When someone
> adds words that suggest hypotheticals and talks about what an algorithm
> "can do" in such hypothetical cases, I get very suspicious. But then
> I've been reading Usenet cranks for the last few years while the good
> Professor has been teaching classes of bright students. He has no
> reason to be suspicious.
>
> My own TL;DR...
>
> My point was that people /here/ should not act as if PO meant some bland
> truism. They should read what he actually wrote and critique that,
> because that is what PO will claim has been agreed to: the claim about a
> D constructed from H, but where H's decision is be based on what would
> happen if H did not do what it actually does. His words encapsulate
> exactly the ruse he is trying to pull.
>
> [1] A_TM = { <M.w> | M is a TM and M accepts w }
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 10:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is proven to be correct to all those paying attention (hardly any) |
| Message-ID | <timh8i$3ojta$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58993 |
On 10/18/2022 10:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 16/10/2022 01:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >> >>> On 15/10/2022 02:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 14/10/2022 18:23, Python wrote: > > The general "take home" message I get from your reply, is that as > expected you do agree with what I meant [*] (and I thought I actually > said), although perhaps you think what I said was not helpful. > > As I was not trying to help PO, and as what I said was addressed to > Python, and just a quick note on PO's behaviour to illustrate a point I > was making [that PO habitually misunderstands practically everything > that anybody says to him], I don't see there's much more here worthy of > our time. > > (Thanks for your thoughts though, and I've responded in several places > below...) > > Background: I wrote this response before I'd read your thread suggesting > curtailing our responses to PO. That might have superseded some of what > I said below, but I can't bring myself to go through this again and > check, so I'm just posting it. > > Mike. > > [*] >> >>> To my mind, *Sipser* is agreeing that *IF* H simulates D until H >>> *CORRECTLY* determines that the simultion of D would never terminate, >>> then H reporting "not halting" is the correct result for a halt >>> decider. > > >>>>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria: >>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>> until H >>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop >>>>>> running >>>>>> [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser >>>>>> has been >>>>>> fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to >>>>>> simulate" and >>>>>> "correctly simulate"] >>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and >>>>>> correctly >>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of >>>>>> configurations. >>>>>> In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be >>>>>> right". >>>>>> But the simulation is not right. D actually halts. >>>>>> And Peter Olcott is f*g disgusting liar. >>>>> >>>>> [tldr; perhaps think "idiot" rather than "liar"?] >>>> <cut> >>>>> It's all reflected in this thread - as you say, Sipser is simply >>>>> agreeing to a tautology THAT NOBODY HERE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH as >>>>> far as I can recall >>>> >>>> Well I disagree with it, and I don't think it's a tautology. It's a >>>> bit >>>> vague and deceptive, but anyone following the history should know that >>>> he's saying that H's incorrect answer is really correct because a >>>> /different/ computation /does/ halt. It's just the latest iteration of >>>> "it's right because of what would happen if line 15 were commented out" >>>> and any agreement with it will bolster PO's delusion that he is on to >>>> something. >>> >>> Yes, I know all that. I think possibly you've misread what I was >>> saying or the larger context, or I didn't say clearly enough what I >>> meant. Let's see... >>> >>> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about >>> what Sipser agreed with. >> >> OK, but I think (if replying to PO) we /should/ be talking about what PO >> writes. > > I get the idea, but also PO writes "[Sipser agrees with /my > interpretation/ of blah blah > subjunctive blah blah subjunctive blah blah]". It seems reasonable for > posters to put PO right on that point. Otherwise whatever anyone says > to PO, he will just keep reposting his "Sipser support" mantra, > convinced in his own mind he is answering the points people make to > him. Like the way he keeps reposting his trace output, as though that > is addressing the points people are making! That will go on forever as > well, unless anyone can convince PO that the trace DOESN'T MEAN WHAT PO > CURRENTLY BELIEVES IT MEANS. > > Hmm, another approach I suppose might be to simply refuse to take on > board any mentioning by PO of Sipser. on the grounds that Sipser isn't > here, so he's not part of the discussion. That leaves PO's > interpretation of Sipser unchallenged, but hey maybe he'll just get fed > up in time when he sees it's "not working". > > You probably know my main position is that people are wasting their time > trying to educate PO or strip his delusions from him. In that sense, NO > post here is "helpful". > >> >>> [What Sipser agreed, copied from above] >>>>>> 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. >>> >>> To my mind, *Sipser* is agreeing that *IF* H simulates D until H >>> *CORRECTLY* determines that the simultion of D would never terminate, >>> then H reporting "not halting" is the correct result for a halt >>> decider. >> >> I know (from his email) that he was agreeing to what seemed like an >> innocuous truth. >> >> But that's how the trickery works. Make it look like a trivial remark >> and hope that no one notices that the reader is being asked to confirm >> that the answer can be determined why what /would/ happen rather than >> what /does/ happen. > > Yes, he did a similar trick with the x86.asm group, getting someone > there to post saying his program was looping. > > The problem for PO is that yes, he can "trick" people, but it doesn't do > him the slightest good here, unless you include irritating posters > (including myself) into a flurry of posts essentially informing PO that > his trick has changed nothing. If PO wants to argue something here, he > needs to argue it here himself, not claim someone elsewhere supports him > in some way therefore we're "not allowed" to disagree. That has never > worked on people here! > >> >> The thing is, Sipser's book discusses halting partly in terms of >> simulation. He shows that A_TM[1] is Turing-recognizable with the simple >> simulation argument. He then remarks that if the TM had a way to >> determine that M was not halting it would be a decider. >> >> Part of Sipser's reported reply was, I think, something like "Thanks for >> checking" so I would hazard a guess that PO presented his nonsense in >> such a way that it just looked like a request to confirm that remark >> from the book. >> >>> I believe D is just being considered as an input that the >>> simulating halt decider is examining, and nothing more... (not as a >>> specific input, although it's logically still ok even if D is the >>> "paradoxical" input, since then the IF clause will never be true, but >>> I can't think that's what Sipser would be thinking.) >> >> But I am not so sure about this part. Sipser uses the name D for the TM >> constructed from H and PO changed his terms so that D would be >> recognisable. I have no idea whether Sipser took the name D to be >> generic or to be his construction, but /we/ know what PO meant. We know >> what PO was hoping to get apparent agreement about. > > Yes, I'm not really sure what Sipser thought D was either. > >> >>> Well, given H simulates correctly, and CORRECTLY determines D would >>> never stop running, what's to disagree with? >> >> We should disagree with what he wrote, and not agree with what we >> suppose someone else thought he meant! >> >> What he wrote was /not/ this simple truism. What he wrote encapsulates >> more than four years of tossing the word salad to find as innocuous a >> way as possible to say that he's redefined what "non halting" means. It >> is the very heart of what PO is trying to get away with. >> >> I don't think anyone should be saying "that's just a tautology" or "or >> course we all agree with this". (BTW, I know that's not what you said). >> The trouble is that saying, as I take you to have said, "we all agree >> with what reasonable people might assume you meant" is not really very >> helpful. > > Of course, if I said that to PO (which I didn't) it would not help him, > which wouldn't bother me tbh. It was addressed to Python, as a brief > supporting note on PO's behaviour, confirming PO's lack of understanding > of what other people tell him, and his general delusional state etc.. > It seemed to me Python might be becoming increasingly wound up by PO's > lack of taking on board points raised by himself and others generally. > But if your viewpoint shifts to seeing PO as mentally damaged, and > literally /incapable/ of understanding those points and posters > arguments generally, then it's clearly quite pointless becoming annoyed > with "just how PO is". (And also pointless spending significant time > explaining stuff to him.) > >> >>> Would you agree with this expanded description of what I think Sipser >>> agreed with perhaps? >> >> Of course. In fact I know it to be the case from his email to me. >> >> But we should take every opportunity to object to this now oft-quoted >> "criterion" because we know what "correctly determines that its >> simulated D would never stop running unless aborted" really means. It >> means that "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >> [is non-halting]". That "would" and "unless" and "can" are crucial, as >> is the fact that D is the name of the confounding TM, built from H. > > I agree that PO's wording is quite unacceptable within any kind of > logical argument, and generally with you're interpretation of what PO is > really saying. But someone who is "taking every opportunity to object > to this..." is unfortunately going to be wasting a significant chunk of > their life doing so, as he says it all the time! > > I don't believe he's capable of understanding /why/ what he's doing is > logically wrong, so I don't see anything changing on this front. So my > stance would be to just let him get on with it and ultimately fail in > all his goals. I actually /like/ helping people who can be helped, but > don't believe PO can be helped on these matters, or that anyone here is > actually helping him, even if PO believes he is "making progress". > >> >>> Nobody is suggesting Sipser said anything supporting PO's position! >> >> Well, I think PO is suggesting exactly that. Why else would he care >> what some professor says? > > Yes, I should have included "apart from PO"... :) > >> >>> I'd stand by my remark that nobody here would disagree with my >>> interpretation of what Sipser agreed to. So it's added nothing to the >>> debate, although it's confused PO probably. >> >> Sure, but PO cares about what the words he wrote meant in the context of >> his 18 wasted years. He cares that someone appears to agree with a >> criterion that includes >> >> "every element of the conventional halting problem set of non-halting >> computations and a few more." >> >>> Secondary question, probably irrelevant due to larger >>> misunderstandings: >>> >>> Is it a /tautology/ that "H CORRECTLY determining that D's simulation >>> will never halt means that the correct response (for a halt decider) >>> is NOTHALT" ? Talking non-technically, I would call that a tautology, >>> because with a little rephrasing it's saying nothing more than "if D's >>> simulation never halts then D never halts", which doesn't seem worth >>> saying. >> >> I have used the term "truism" because I think that is close enough >> without getting into the technical definitions. > > Sure, that sounds better. > >> >>> OK, it's not technically a tautology, because D's simulation not >>> halting is not the same proposition as D not halting - the meanings >>> are different; but everyone knows without further comment that D's >>> simulation tracks the D computation and so either they both halt or >>> they both fail to halt. That's essentially contained in the word >>> "simulation". >>> >>> If that's all you meant by "I don't think it's a tautology" I'd agree, >>> but I'm confident we diverged at a much higher level than this. :) >> >> Absolutely it's more than that: the main divergence seems to be that you >> are talking about what someone reasonable might have taken PO to mean >> where I am talking about PO actually wrote. >> >> Do you agree that the actual words, as best we can understand them given >> PO's lack of technical writing skills, re-defines non-halting so H can >> report "non-halting" for a halting computation due to what would happen >> if H did not do what it actually does? > > tl;dr : I'll say more or less "yes", but I don't think things are quite > that simple.. > > I don't think we could get PO to clarify his words to anything that has > a precise meaning. So in some ways, I'd say suggesting that PO is > "really" thinking something that is *coherent* but different from the > actual problem statement [POOH or whatever], is giving too much credit > to PO. > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) 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. On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion > (in this one case)... H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... > I'd agree that the effect of all those subjunctives etc. is that PO is > able to justify to himself his intuition that basically H is employing > correct logic, and therefore is by definition reaching the "correct" > conclusion. [Despite disagreeing with the obvious HP reality of D(D) > actually halting etc.] I'd agree that this involves PO leaving behind > the actual definition of halting, and that to reach the conclusion he > reaches, he must consider what code does if it did something other than > what it does. > Professor Sipser has specifically approved the above alternative definition of halting. > To be fair, if PO viewed "what the simulation by H would do if not > aborted" as replacing the outer H simulating P(D) with UTM(P,D) > behaviour, that would not lead him far astray. The point being that > UTM(P,D) HAS THE SAME INPUT as H(P,D) so we are still talking about the > halt status for input (P,D), not (UTM, UTM) or whatever. Looking at it > this way, we could just as well say the "real" mistake PO is making is > the CHANGING OF INPUT being considered /as a result of/ considering what > H would do if H did not do what it does. And that mistake might not > have happened if PO's computing architecture actually properly > distinguished code (of H or D fed via his OBJ file to utmx86) from data > (machine /descriptions/ and other "tape data" which are "inputs" read by > the program code. > Sipser_D cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction when 1 to ∞ steps of Sipser_D are correctly simulated by some Sipser_H because Sipser_D calls each Sipser_H in recursive simulation. Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8 machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code language ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped > But you know what? PO's thinking about the whole thing is totally > muddled - not clear at any level - and insisting his mistake is > specifically one coherent thing doesn't really work for me. (Although I > reckon I've mostly agreed with your specific points...) That you are not bothering to pay close enough attention to the details of what I am saying is no mistake at all on my part. That you may not have sufficient technical background to evaluate the technical details of what I am saying is again no mistake of mine. > As you've often said - it's enough that P(D,D) returns NotHalt, while > D(D) actually halts. *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) 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. The program under test is the input to Sipser_H(Sipser_D, Sipser_D) non inputs to Sipser_H are not the program under test. > Knowing more about /why/ PO believes his claims, > is of some interest, but in the end not enough to waste a /lot/ of time > on, given that nobody will succeed in convincing PO he is wrong... -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-20 02:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87o7u7b751.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #58993 |
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > On 16/10/2022 01:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >>> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about >>> what Sipser agreed with. >> >> OK, but I think (if replying to PO) we /should/ be talking about what PO >> writes. > > I get the idea, but also PO writes "[Sipser agrees with /my > interpretation/ of blah blah subjunctive blah blah subjunctive blah > blah]". It seems reasonable for posters to put PO right on that > point. OK. But I think (were I ever to reply) I would do both. That can be summarised as "you tricked the professor (possibly unintentionally)". > Otherwise whatever anyone says to PO, he will just keep reposting his > "Sipser support" mantra, convinced in his own mind he is answering the > points people make to him. It's really hard to imagine that he think he has found support for his made up non-halting criterion. Everyone else knows he has not, not least because the professor did not say "Oh no, I've been wrong all these years. I need to re-write my textbook." But then I suspect that we have no idea how badly he understands other people and their motivation. His understanding of other people's mental states may be as poor as his understanding of Turing machine states. <big cut> (I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I just have nothing pertinent to say about it.) >> Do you agree that the actual words, as best we can understand them given >> PO's lack of technical writing skills, re-defines non-halting so H can >> report "non-halting" for a halting computation due to what would happen >> if H did not do what it actually does? > > tl;dr : I'll say more or less "yes", but I don't think things are > quite that simple.. > > I don't think we could get PO to clarify his words to anything that > has a precise meaning. So in some ways, I'd say suggesting that PO is > "really" thinking something that is *coherent* but different from the > actual problem statement [POOH or whatever], is giving too much credit > to PO. Hmm... It's just that there is a strong thread going right back to the "if line 15 were commented out" post. He's said the same thing in all sorts of ways, but it's the same trick. But maybe I am attributing too much consistency to his various remarks. After all, he has posted directly contradictory statements within hours without, it seems, a second thought. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-19 20:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is provably correct to anyone that pays attention |
| Message-ID | <tiq9k0$1v4t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #59081 |
On 10/19/2022 8:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > >> On 16/10/2022 01:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > >>>> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about >>>> what Sipser agreed with. >>> >>> OK, but I think (if replying to PO) we /should/ be talking about what PO >>> writes. >> >> I get the idea, but also PO writes "[Sipser agrees with /my >> interpretation/ of blah blah subjunctive blah blah subjunctive blah >> blah]". It seems reasonable for posters to put PO right on that >> point. > > OK. But I think (were I ever to reply) I would do both. That can be > summarised as "you tricked the professor (possibly unintentionally)". > >> Otherwise whatever anyone says to PO, he will just keep reposting his >> "Sipser support" mantra, convinced in his own mind he is answering the >> points people make to him. > > It's really hard to imagine that he think he has found support for his > made up non-halting criterion. Everyone else knows he has not, not > least because the professor did not say "Oh no, I've been wrong all > these years. I need to re-write my textbook." > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) 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 agreed with those verbatim words yet did not have the extra ten minutes required to understand the notion of recursive simulation. > But then I suspect that we have no idea how badly he understands other > people and their motivation. His understanding of other people's mental > states may be as poor as his understanding of Turing machine states. > > <big cut> > (I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I just have nothing pertinent to say > about it.) > >>> Do you agree that the actual words, as best we can understand them given >>> PO's lack of technical writing skills, re-defines non-halting so H can >>> report "non-halting" for a halting computation due to what would happen >>> if H did not do what it actually does? >> >> tl;dr : I'll say more or less "yes", but I don't think things are >> quite that simple.. >> >> I don't think we could get PO to clarify his words to anything that >> has a precise meaning. So in some ways, I'd say suggesting that PO is >> "really" thinking something that is *coherent* but different from the >> actual problem statement [POOH or whatever], is giving too much credit >> to PO. > > Hmm... It's just that there is a strong thread going right back to the > "if line 15 were commented out" post. He's said the same thing in all > sorts of ways, but it's the same trick. Yes and the huge difference now is that the best selling author of textbooks about the theory of computation now agrees with me. https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295 -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-19 22:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <GY14L.447339$SAT4.403436@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #59081 |
On 10/19/22 9:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > >> On 16/10/2022 01:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > >>>> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about >>>> what Sipser agreed with. >>> >>> OK, but I think (if replying to PO) we /should/ be talking about what PO >>> writes. >> >> I get the idea, but also PO writes "[Sipser agrees with /my >> interpretation/ of blah blah subjunctive blah blah subjunctive blah >> blah]". It seems reasonable for posters to put PO right on that >> point. > > OK. But I think (were I ever to reply) I would do both. That can be > summarised as "you tricked the professor (possibly unintentionally)". > >> Otherwise whatever anyone says to PO, he will just keep reposting his >> "Sipser support" mantra, convinced in his own mind he is answering the >> points people make to him. > > It's really hard to imagine that he think he has found support for his > made up non-halting criterion. Everyone else knows he has not, not > least because the professor did not say "Oh no, I've been wrong all > these years. I need to re-write my textbook." No, I think he really does think that Dr Sipser has "seen th elight" and is agreeing with his interpretation. He may just be thinking he needs to explain the next step of the logic more clearly to get him to see the rest. > > But then I suspect that we have no idea how badly he understands other > people and their motivation. His understanding of other people's mental > states may be as poor as his understanding of Turing machine states. > I am not sure if he is just mentally deficient on these matters or if he has brainwashed himself about it. The big problem is that he doesn't really care about the Halting Problem, so he doesn't want to invest effort into it, it is just that it becomes the easy proof that the rest of his ideas are just wrong, so he NEEDS to disprove it. Since he is sure he is right about what "Truth" means, and it clearly shows that not all Truths are provable, it must be wrong, so his mind makes up "facts" to let him prove it. > <big cut> > (I'm not ignoring what you wrote, I just have nothing pertinent to say > about it.) > >>> Do you agree that the actual words, as best we can understand them given >>> PO's lack of technical writing skills, re-defines non-halting so H can >>> report "non-halting" for a halting computation due to what would happen >>> if H did not do what it actually does? >> >> tl;dr : I'll say more or less "yes", but I don't think things are >> quite that simple.. >> >> I don't think we could get PO to clarify his words to anything that >> has a precise meaning. So in some ways, I'd say suggesting that PO is >> "really" thinking something that is *coherent* but different from the >> actual problem statement [POOH or whatever], is giving too much credit >> to PO. > > Hmm... It's just that there is a strong thread going right back to the > "if line 15 were commented out" post. He's said the same thing in all > sorts of ways, but it's the same trick. But maybe I am attributing too > much consistency to his various remarks. After all, he has posted > directly contradictory statements within hours without, it seems, a > second thought. > I think he fundamentally doesn't understand the basics of how computations work so that messy stuff just becomes squishy and hand waved away. After all, to him, The operation of Turing Machines are impenitrable, when they are actually very simple and straight forward. They may be a pain to write a "program" for, becauase they are so limited in what they can do with a single instruction, but their operation is very simple to understand, excpet to Peter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-19 22:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott is proven to be correct. |
| Message-ID | <tiqh1f$4qks$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59083 |
On 10/19/2022 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/19/22 9:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >> >>> On 16/10/2022 01:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >> >>>>> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about >>>>> what Sipser agreed with. >>>> >>>> OK, but I think (if replying to PO) we /should/ be talking about >>>> what PO >>>> writes. >>> >>> I get the idea, but also PO writes "[Sipser agrees with /my >>> interpretation/ of blah blah subjunctive blah blah subjunctive blah >>> blah]". It seems reasonable for posters to put PO right on that >>> point. >> >> OK. But I think (were I ever to reply) I would do both. That can be >> summarised as "you tricked the professor (possibly unintentionally)". >> >>> Otherwise whatever anyone says to PO, he will just keep reposting his >>> "Sipser support" mantra, convinced in his own mind he is answering the >>> points people make to him. >> >> It's really hard to imagine that he think he has found support for his >> made up non-halting criterion. Everyone else knows he has not, not >> least because the professor did not say "Oh no, I've been wrong all >> these years. I need to re-write my textbook." > > No, I think he really does think that Dr Sipser has "seen the light" and > is agreeing with his interpretation. He may just be thinking he needs to > explain the next step of the logic more clearly to get him to see the rest. > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) 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. I never "interpret" anything I always take the purely literal meaning that has no subjective leeway of "interpretation" -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web