Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #58398 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-10-12 10:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-10-30 11:43 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 10:08 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-12 17:54 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-12 17:46 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 12:04 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 16:07 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 23:58 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 06:51 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 09:43 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 18:33 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 17:47 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 19:04 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 20:52 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [Ben agrees] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 20:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:04 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-18 02:36 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 19:56 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-18 03:01 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:10 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-18 03:24 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:27 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 21:33 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 20:54 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 20:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 21:26 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:35 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 21:46 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:57 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:03 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 21:14 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:23 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-10-17 21:34 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:41 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 21:48 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:56 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 22:09 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 22:27 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 22:05 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 21:19 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 22:32 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-10-17 21:36 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-10-18 05:55 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 09:58 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-10-17 04:59 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 09:20 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 09:31 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 11:48 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 18:24 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 12:38 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 18:52 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 13:04 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 19:07 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 13:25 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 19:30 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 14:17 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 20:26 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 14:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 20:50 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 15:07 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 12:32 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 15:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 15:23 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 17:39 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 17:17 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 11:46 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 17:47 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:26 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:13 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:06 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 18:22 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 20:59 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 20:13 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 21:56 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 20:19 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 03:44 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo !!! olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 21:07 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo !!! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 22:21 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 22:01 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 21:11 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 22:27 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 21:37 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 23:00 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 22:28 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 23:51 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 23:00 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 07:56 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:13 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 13:34 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 23:01 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 08:05 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:14 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-14 15:32 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 13:01 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:01 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 18:42 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 17:59 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 20:04 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:00 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 21:52 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 21:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:13 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 21:33 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:51 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 18:37 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 17:46 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 16:49 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 19:27 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 19:35 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 20:45 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 21:59 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 21:07 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:17 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 20:42 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 18:23 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:31 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 03:50 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 23:15 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 22:51 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 07:50 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 09:35 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 17:54 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 11:28 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:12 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:11 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 12:29 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 22:29 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-13 11:28 -0600
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:40 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 18:43 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:52 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:09 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:34 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 13:45 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:51 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:55 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:58 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 14:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 21:06 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:14 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-13 23:06 -0600
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 00:28 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 08:09 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:20 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 16:38 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 10:37 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 17:45 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 11:00 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 18:07 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 11:36 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 18:53 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 18:59 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 12:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 19:12 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 12:24 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 19:29 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 12:57 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 14:17 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 13:29 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 13:26 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 14:40 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 14:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 15:52 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:09 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:28 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:49 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 17:00 -0400
Re: Trickery Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 01:21 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:29 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:39 -0400
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 09:40 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:17 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 14:20 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 14:31 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:13 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:26 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:39 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:42 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 06:51 -0700
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:25 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:36 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:40 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:56 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:02 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 10:24 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 07:38 -0700
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:46 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:52 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 19:53 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:56 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:17 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-10-14 13:07 +0300
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:08 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:11 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 06:54 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-17 16:23 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 10:40 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 18:36 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 19:41 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 19:53 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:54 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-19 16:59 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (Ben's support) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-20 22:17 -0500
Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 22:41 -0500
Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 15:03 -0500
Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria [Paul N Lies] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 14:20 -0500
Paul N is a liar or does not bother to pay attention olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 17:10 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 18:51 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:58 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 19:09 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 21:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:07 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 22:36 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 09:18 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 02:50 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 19:09 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:19 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:05 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2022-10-13 10:47 +0300
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 09:33 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 10:42 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 12:48 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:37 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 19:40 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:49 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 19:52 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:52 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 15:12 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-13 21:07 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:19 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-13 21:28 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 15:11 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 20:24 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:19 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [-Update-] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-30 11:43 -0500
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e6e9e6d-569b-48a5-828a-b162de3e063en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58465 |
On Friday, 14 October 2022 at 00:18:03 UTC+8, philipw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:38:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> > On 10/12/2022 10:07 PM, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:34:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> > >> On 10/12/2022 9:09 PM, Philip White wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> > >>>> On 10/12/2022 8:51 PM, Philip White wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> > >>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks
> > >>>>>> correct:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
> > >>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
> > >>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
> > >>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
> > >>>>>> paper.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> > >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
> > >>>>>> presented to him.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> > >>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Peter,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> > >>>> Thanks for your review.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> You're welcome.
> > >>>
> > >>>> ... It does this by correctly construing all of the
> > >>>> conventional "impossible" inputs as specifying the recursive simulation
> > >>>> non-halting behavior pattern.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Which inputs are impossible? Do you mean inputs that are impossible to decide
> > >> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem
> > >> of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
> > >> program and an input, whether the program will finish running,
> > >> or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
> > >> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> > >> program-input pairs cannot exist.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, that's exactly right. The key is, "arbitrary" is a word that mathematicians use to mean that "it can be any element from the set." So, if someone writes, "Fix an arbitrary x in the set S such that P(x) is true," where P is some property, then that could be re-written as the logically equivalent statement, "For all x in S, P(x) is true." That is why the Halting Problem proof applies to *all* of the Turing machines in the set of all Turing machines.
> > >
> > >
> > >> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
> > >> "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own
> > >> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
> > >> what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case*
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how you defined "pathological," but yes, everything you've said so far is exactly correct.
> > >
> > Wikipedia just explained how they defined pathological and then I
> > provided the pathological source code below.
> > > -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> // P does the opposite of whatever H decides
> > >> void P(ptr x)
> > >> {
> > >> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> > >> if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P) reports that its input halts
> > >> HERE: goto HERE; // P loops and never halts
> > >> return; // else P halts
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> int main()
> > >> {
> > >> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> H recognizes the recursive simulation of P using the same criteria that
> > >> it uses to recognize this:
> > >>
> > >> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> > >> {
> > >> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> correctly, i.e., pair <M,I> such that M,I doesn't halt (any halting pair
> > >> can be decided via direct simulation)? You say that these inputs are
> > >> "construed" as "specifying the recursive simulation non-halting behavior
> > >> pattern"...the problem is, how will you do this? In order to somehow
> > >> rebut the halting problem proof, you would need to have a specific
> > >> algorithm that solves the halting problem every time. If you can't
> > >> produce that algorithm, it is unlikely that you have a correct proof.
> > >> It's like if you claimed P = NP non-constructively; either you must
> > >> produce a correct algorithm that works (and prove that it works, which
> > >> is often not all that hard), or present a non-constructive proof, where
> > >> you present a deductive reasoning argument that the algorithm *must*
> > >> exist. Vaguely stating something about construing some things as other
> > >> things is not a proof. If you have an intuition about it, that might be
> > >> neat, but you need to be specific and write something that can be
> > >> construed as a formal proof--or shorthand for it--to get accepted.
> > >>>
> > >>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has just validated my original notion of a
> > >>>> simulating halt decider.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, Michael Sipser is an authority on TCS.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
> > >>
> > >> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> > >> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> > >> Arthur Schopenhauer
> > --
> > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
> >
> > "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> > Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> > Arthur Schopenhauer
> OK, so this article?:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathology
>
> Did you indicate that pathological is essentially "progressing?" If you could explain how your algorithm is somehow pathological, that would help people to understand if you claim to have a specific argument establishing that the Halting Problem proof is incorrect.
>
> If you would provide more detail, I could give more analytical feedback on your idea...I have a very good background in math, and I know CS too. I can stay with this for now and keep trying to help...I have plenty of time and can try to go back and forth and explain and/or debate issues with your algorithm, if you're willing to get more deeply into it. It sounds like you have sort of a "perimeter defense" up and might be "testing" people to see if they will accept your initial claims. If you are willing to accept the possibility that I might not agree with your initial claims but will still explain the deeper aspects of your approach, according to me, then I would encourage you to keep asking me to help analyze your idea.
>
> I won't have unlimited time in the future, but I do have lots of time now.
>
> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
Don't know why that wiki mentions '"pathological" program P'.
olcott nearly misinterprets everything he reads according to his like.
Now, he just got an obvious chance to "INTENTIONALLY misinterpret".
Given a program P, what is (how to decide) THE CORRECT answer that P halts or not?
What would you say?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 02:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tiabop$1t9hn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58505 |
wij wrote: .. > Don't know why that wiki mentions '"pathological" program P'. > olcott nearly misinterprets everything he reads according to his like. > Now, he just got an obvious chance to "INTENTIONALLY misinterpret". > > Given a program P, what is (how to decide) THE CORRECT answer that P halts or not? > What would you say? So true. Olcott will make you agree that an even prime number greater that 3 is even in order to, then, turn this into supporting the claim that exists an even number greater than 3 exists. This is properly disgusting behavior. The more you read him, the more you want to puke. Olcott is going so far in shell games and obfuscation that it is not enough to consider him as stupid and incompetent (what he is, anyway), but a dishonest asshole to begin with. Ben is right, only two lines suffice as an answer to this psychopath bigot: 1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt 2. P(P) does halt. End of Story. 18 years of nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a8e2851-aba8-4012-a2d7-73b014219bbcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58513 |
On Friday, 14 October 2022 at 08:50:35 UTC+8, Python wrote: > wij wrote: > .. > > Don't know why that wiki mentions '"pathological" program P'. > > olcott nearly misinterprets everything he reads according to his like. > > Now, he just got an obvious chance to "INTENTIONALLY misinterpret". > > > > Given a program P, what is (how to decide) THE CORRECT answer that P halts or not? > > What would you say? > So true. Olcott will make you agree that an even prime number greater > that 3 is even in order to, then, turn this into supporting the claim > that exists an even number greater than 3 exists. > > This is properly disgusting behavior. The more you read him, the > more you want to puke. Understand what you mean. Olcott can fabricate various kind of reason for his claim (paten) to be true. He can even cheat his bible with no trouble. > Olcott is going so far in shell games and obfuscation that it is > not enough to consider him as stupid and incompetent (what he is, > anyway), but a dishonest asshole to begin with. > > Ben is right, only two lines suffice as an answer to this psychopath > bigot: > > 1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt > 2. P(P) does halt. > > End of Story. 18 years of nonsense. It took lots of efforts for olcott to say so explicitly, he used to be vague about his reasoning. By now, he changed "P halts" to mean the "status dedicded by POOH", nothing to do with P(P) being executed independently. So, the two lines you listed are 'invalid', no rebuttal, to him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 22:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <WAK1L.576781$Ny99.432710@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #58439 |
On 10/12/22 9:58 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 8:51 PM, Philip White wrote: >> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks >>> correct: >>> >>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>> >>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this >>> paper. >>> >>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>> >>> >>> >>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>> presented to him. >>> >>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; >>> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer >> >> >> Peter, >> >> I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified >> might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing >> machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or >> TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be >> re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your >> paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the >> halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you >> had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a >> database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide >> them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the >> database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or >> you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that >> it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, >> countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all >> Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof >> showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this. >> >> I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In >> practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely >> correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very >> difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very >> valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very >> reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple >> logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* >> Halting Problem instances correctly. >> >> Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few >> weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for >> posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought >> you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back >> to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, >> but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.) >> >> -Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com) > > Thanks for your review. > > A simulating halt decider defeats all of the conventional halting > problem proofs (now even including the diagonal argument as my most > recent breakthrough). It does this by correctly construing all of the > conventional "impossible" inputs as specifying the recursive simulation > non-halting behavior pattern. > > MIT Professor Michael Sipser has just validated my original notion of a > simulating halt decider. > And since they don't, it doesn't And, from what you have said, he hasn't actually validated your key point, and thus you still have nothing. Unless you pointed out that your processing cause the input to use the altered version of H, he hasn't aggreed to your logic. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 22:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DnK1L.540803$6Il8.205336@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #58437 |
On 10/12/22 9:51 PM, Philip White wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks >> correct: >> >> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >> >> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this >> paper. >> >> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >> >> >> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >> presented to him. >> >> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >> >> >> -- >> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; >> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer > > > Peter, > > I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this. > > I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly. > > Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.) > > -Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com) > > > > Actually, the Halting Problem Proof shows that NO prospective Halt Decider can answer correctly about the machine built on it by this pattern. No H can correctly decide on the H^ built by that method, because what ever it decides, H^ will do the opposite, since it can use the algorithm of H to know what H will do when deciding on it. It can do this because computations are deterministic, and thus predictable. Olcott's LIE is that he CLAIMS to build the "impossible machine" by the pattern, but then redefines this so that the "corrcect simulation" of this machine is actually the results of correctly simulating a DIFFERENT machine. It is well know that you can often decide on the H^ machine built on a DIFFERENT decider than yourself, so he isn't showing anything new, he just uses deception to try to make you think that those two are the same machine. It just shows he doesn't understand what a Turing Machine actually is, or by extension what a Computation or an Algorithm (as used in Computation Theory) is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 10:47 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87h7089nd7.fsf@tigger.extechop.net> |
| In reply to | #58398 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph > looks correct: ... > Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper > presented to him. I've worked at a mathematics department where we continuously got messages from people convinced they have squared the circle, or other similar mathematical impossibilities favored by pseudomathematicians. Professor Spiser's answer looks somewhat similar to the answers we gave out to these people. Another common approach is to misapprehend standard mathematical methods, and to insist that the use or knowledge of higher mathematics is somehow cheating or misleading (e.g., the denial of Cantor's diagonal argument or Gödel's incompleteness theorems). -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomathematics -- /* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */ /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */ /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 09:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti97iu$1qfdf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58458 |
On 10/13/2022 2:47 AM, Otto J. Makela wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>> looks correct:
> ...
>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>> presented to him.
>
> I've worked at a mathematics department where we continuously got
> messages from people convinced they have squared the circle, or other
> similar mathematical impossibilities favored by pseudomathematicians.
> Professor Spiser's answer looks somewhat similar to the answers we gave
> out to these people.
>
> Another common approach is to misapprehend standard
> mathematical methods, and to insist that the use or knowledge
> of higher mathematics is somehow cheating or misleading
> (e.g., the denial of Cantor's diagonal argument or Gödel's
> incompleteness theorems).
> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomathematics
*Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
When that is applied to this
int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
{
if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
return 0;
return 1;
}
Sipser_H correctly recognizes that its correctly simulated Sipser_D
would never stop running unless this simulation is aborted.
Everyone here knows that this last sentence is true, and Professor
Sipser's affirmation above allows Sipser_H to correctly determine that
Sipser_D is non-halting.
--
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 | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87sfjr39jr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #58461 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
[...]
Does that imply that he agreed that a halt decider is possible?
I'm sure you think he did, but did he agree to that explicitly?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 12:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9j0s$1o5k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58472 |
On 10/13/2022 12:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > [...] >> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > [...] > > Does that imply that he agreed that a halt decider is possible? > > I'm sure you think he did, but did he agree to that explicitly? > Professor Sipser specifically approved this exact verbiage as the abstract to my paper, linked below at 11:29:23 AM today: <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 -- 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 | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87o7uf37s0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #58474 |
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> writes:
> On 10/13/2022 12:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> [...]
>> Does that imply that he agreed that a halt decider is possible?
>> I'm sure you think he did, but did he agree to that explicitly?
>>
>
> Professor Sipser specifically approved this exact verbiage as the
> abstract to my paper, linked below at 11:29:23 AM today:
>
> <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
What is the point of repeating what you wrote earlier? You didn't
answer my question. (I suspect you know that, and are being
deliberately evasive.)
If two distinct prime numbers are both even, then the difference between
them is a non-zero even number. I'm guessing that Professor Sipser
would agree with that statement, but it would not imply that he agrees
that there are two distinct even prime numbers.
Similarly, I see no evidence that Professor Sipser agrees that a
"simulating halt decider" is possible, only a trivial agreement about
what would happen if it were possible.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 13:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9lsp$1rlq0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58477 |
On 10/13/2022 1:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> writes: >> On 10/13/2022 12:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> [...] >>> Does that imply that he agreed that a halt decider is possible? >>> I'm sure you think he did, but did he agree to that explicitly? >>> >> >> Professor Sipser specifically approved this exact verbiage as the >> abstract to my paper, linked below at 11:29:23 AM today: >> >> <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 > > What is the point of repeating what you wrote earlier? You didn't > answer my question. (I suspect you know that, and are being > deliberately evasive.) > > If two distinct prime numbers are both even, then the difference between > them is a non-zero even number. I'm guessing that Professor Sipser > would agree with that statement, but it would not imply that he agrees > that there are two distinct even prime numbers. > > Similarly, I see no evidence that Professor Sipser agrees that a > "simulating halt decider" is possible, only a trivial agreement about > what would happen if it were possible. > Not at all. Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior of the input D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H is the correct behavior for H to base its halt status decision on. This has been the only remaining sticking point. -- 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 | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 19:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221013194013.000011da@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58480 |
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:37:12 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2022 1:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> writes: > >> On 10/13/2022 12:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >>> [...] > >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* > >>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation > >>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it > >>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report > >>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > >>> [...] > >>> Does that imply that he agreed that a halt decider is possible? > >>> I'm sure you think he did, but did he agree to that explicitly? > >>> > >> > >> Professor Sipser specifically approved this exact verbiage as the > >> abstract to my paper, linked below at 11:29:23 AM today: > >> > >> <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 > >> > > > > What is the point of repeating what you wrote earlier? You didn't > > answer my question. (I suspect you know that, and are being > > deliberately evasive.) > > > > If two distinct prime numbers are both even, then the difference > > between them is a non-zero even number. I'm guessing that > > Professor Sipser would agree with that statement, but it would not > > imply that he agrees that there are two distinct even prime numbers. > > > > Similarly, I see no evidence that Professor Sipser agrees that a > > "simulating halt decider" is possible, only a trivial agreement > > about what would happen if it were possible. > > > > Not at all. Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior of the input D > correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H is the correct > behavior for H to base its halt status decision on. > > This has been the only remaining sticking point. A halt decider is not a halt decider if it cannot give a correct halting decision for ALL inputs. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9mjp$1rlq0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58481 |
On 10/13/2022 1:40 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:37:12 -0500 > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/13/2022 1:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> writes: >>>> On 10/13/2022 12:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>> [...] >>>>> Does that imply that he agreed that a halt decider is possible? >>>>> I'm sure you think he did, but did he agree to that explicitly? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Professor Sipser specifically approved this exact verbiage as the >>>> abstract to my paper, linked below at 11:29:23 AM today: >>>> >>>> <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 >>>> >>> >>> What is the point of repeating what you wrote earlier? You didn't >>> answer my question. (I suspect you know that, and are being >>> deliberately evasive.) >>> >>> If two distinct prime numbers are both even, then the difference >>> between them is a non-zero even number. I'm guessing that >>> Professor Sipser would agree with that statement, but it would not >>> imply that he agrees that there are two distinct even prime numbers. >>> >>> Similarly, I see no evidence that Professor Sipser agrees that a >>> "simulating halt decider" is possible, only a trivial agreement >>> about what would happen if it were possible. >>> >> >> Not at all. Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior of the input D >> correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H is the correct >> behavior for H to base its halt status decision on. >> >> This has been the only remaining sticking point. > > A halt decider is not a halt decider if it cannot give a correct > halting decision for ALL inputs. > > /Flibble Technically that is true yet calling H a halt determiner would be too difficult for most people. We could say that H is a halt decider for every element in its domain. This may be too difficult for software engineers. My target audience is computer scientists and software engineers. -- 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 | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 19:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221013195245.00007bef@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58483 |
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:49:28 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2022 1:40 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:37:12 -0500 > > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/13/2022 1:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> writes: > >>>> On 10/13/2022 12:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >>>>> [...] > >>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt > >>>>>> decider* If H does correctly determine that its correct > >>>>>> simulation of D would never stop running unless aborted, then > >>>>>> it would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report > >>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > >>>>> [...] > >>>>> Does that imply that he agreed that a halt decider is possible? > >>>>> I'm sure you think he did, but did he agree to that explicitly? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Professor Sipser specifically approved this exact verbiage as the > >>>> abstract to my paper, linked below at 11:29:23 AM today: > >>>> > >>>> <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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> What is the point of repeating what you wrote earlier? You didn't > >>> answer my question. (I suspect you know that, and are being > >>> deliberately evasive.) > >>> > >>> If two distinct prime numbers are both even, then the difference > >>> between them is a non-zero even number. I'm guessing that > >>> Professor Sipser would agree with that statement, but it would not > >>> imply that he agrees that there are two distinct even prime > >>> numbers. > >>> > >>> Similarly, I see no evidence that Professor Sipser agrees that a > >>> "simulating halt decider" is possible, only a trivial agreement > >>> about what would happen if it were possible. > >>> > >> > >> Not at all. Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior of the input > >> D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H is the correct > >> behavior for H to base its halt status decision on. > >> > >> This has been the only remaining sticking point. > > > > A halt decider is not a halt decider if it cannot give a correct > > halting decision for ALL inputs. > > > > /Flibble > > Technically that is true yet calling H a halt determiner would be too > difficult for most people. We could say that H is a halt decider for > every element in its domain. This may be too difficult for software > engineers. My target audience is computer scientists and software > engineers. In its domain??? What a load of bollocks. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87k05333hg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #58480 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
> On 10/13/2022 1:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> writes:
>>> On 10/13/2022 12:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> [...]
>>>> Does that imply that he agreed that a halt decider is possible?
>>>> I'm sure you think he did, but did he agree to that explicitly?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Professor Sipser specifically approved this exact verbiage as the
>>> abstract to my paper, linked below at 11:29:23 AM today:
>>>
>>> <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
>> What is the point of repeating what you wrote earlier? You didn't
>> answer my question. (I suspect you know that, and are being
>> deliberately evasive.)
>> If two distinct prime numbers are both even, then the difference
>> between
>> them is a non-zero even number. I'm guessing that Professor Sipser
>> would agree with that statement, but it would not imply that he agrees
>> that there are two distinct even prime numbers.
>> Similarly, I see no evidence that Professor Sipser agrees that a
>> "simulating halt decider" is possible, only a trivial agreement about
>> what would happen if it were possible.
>
> Not at all. Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior of the input D
> correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H is the correct
> behavior for H to base its halt status decision on.
>
> This has been the only remaining sticking point.
What exactly does your "Not at all" refer to? I wrote three paragraphs
of text (and you've deleted the line breaks between the paragraphs for
some reason; please don't do that). I can't tell what you're
disagreeing with.
As far as I can tell, Professor Sipser has agreed that *if* a halt
decider could exist, it would exhibit certain behavior. That's a
trivial and uncontroversial statement.
You seem to want people to infer that Professor Sipser agrees with you
that a halt decider is possible, or at least that you've discovered
something significant about the halting problem, but you won't quite say
so explicitly.
By all means, continue to reply as evasively as you have so far. But if
you want me to continue posting, you'll need to write something
interesting and/or responsive to something I've written.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 15:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9rfs$1s407$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58477 |
On 10/13/2022 1:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> writes: >> On 10/13/2022 12:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> [...] >>> Does that imply that he agreed that a halt decider is possible? >>> I'm sure you think he did, but did he agree to that explicitly? >>> >> >> Professor Sipser specifically approved this exact verbiage as the >> abstract to my paper, linked below at 11:29:23 AM today: >> >> <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 > > What is the point of repeating what you wrote earlier? You didn't > answer my question. (I suspect you know that, and are being > deliberately evasive.) > > If two distinct prime numbers are both even, then the difference between > them is a non-zero even number. I'm guessing that Professor Sipser > would agree with that statement, but it would not imply that he agrees > that there are two distinct even prime numbers. > > Similarly, I see no evidence that Professor Sipser agrees that a > "simulating halt decider" is possible, only a trivial agreement about > what would happen if it were possible. > Not at all. Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior of the input D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H is the correct behavior for H to base its halt status decision on. This has been the only remaining sticking point. -- 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 | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 21:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ti9nkq$1tqh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58398 |
Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: > Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks > correct: > > If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation > of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be > correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? This is a tautology. If H is correct, then it would be correct. So, what remains for you is to prove that H is correct. Most people here think that your H incorrectly determines that its incorrect simulation would never stop running. In that case, Michael Sipser's saying does not apply. So, this information of Michael Sipser does not bring us any further. You still have to prove that your H is correct, before you can use it. Up to now, nobody seems to accept your proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 14:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9oci$1rlq0$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58492 |
On 10/13/2022 2:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >> looks correct: >> >> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? > > This is a tautology. If H is correct, then it would be correct. > Everyone here has disagreed that H can base its halt status decision on the fact that its correct simulation of this input would never stop running. > So, what remains for you is to prove that H is correct. Most people here > think that your H incorrectly determines that its incorrect simulation That H correctly simulates its input can be easily verified by every sufficiently competent software engineer: It is verified that the line-by-line execution trace of P produced by H exactly matches what the line-by-line x86 source-code of P specifies. > would never stop running. In that case, Michael Sipser's saying does not > apply. > So, this information of Michael Sipser does not bring us any further. > You still have to prove that your H is correct, before you can use it. > Up to now, nobody seems to accept your proof. > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 21:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ti9os7$flp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58494 |
Op 13.okt..2022 om 21:19 schreef olcott: > On 10/13/2022 2:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>> looks correct: >>> >>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >> >> This is a tautology. If H is correct, then it would be correct. >> > > Everyone here has disagreed that H can base its halt status decision on > the fact that its correct simulation of this input would never stop > running. No, nobody accepted that it was a correct simulation, so the premise for Michael Sipser would not be valid in that case. > >> So, what remains for you is to prove that H is correct. Most people >> here think that your H incorrectly determines that its incorrect >> simulation > > That H correctly simulates its input can be easily verified by every > sufficiently competent software engineer: It is verified that the > line-by-line execution trace of P produced by H exactly matches what the > line-by-line x86 source-code of P specifies. Yes, everybody accepts that a few lines are correctly simulated. Most people do not accept the logic that if a few lines are simulated then the behaviour of the whole function is correctly simulated. In particular, the line where P calls H is essential for the behaviour of P, but one thinks that it is not correctly simulated. >> would never stop running. In that case, Michael Sipser's saying does >> not apply. >> So, this information of Michael Sipser does not bring us any further. >> You still have to prove that your H is correct, before you can use it. >> Up to now, nobody seems to accept your proof. >> The sentence approved by Michael Sipser starts with a premise (If ...). You duty is to prove that your H fits this premise. You can not reverse it and conclude from his approval that the premise is correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 15:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9rcp$1s407$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58496 |
On 10/13/2022 2:28 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 13.okt..2022 om 21:19 schreef olcott:
>> On 10/13/2022 2:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>> looks correct:
>>>>
>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>
>>> This is a tautology. If H is correct, then it would be correct.
>>>
>>
>> Everyone here has disagreed that H can base its halt status decision
>> on the fact that its correct simulation of this input would never stop
>> running.
>
> No, nobody accepted that it was a correct simulation, so the premise for
> Michael Sipser would not be valid in that case.
>
>>
>>> So, what remains for you is to prove that H is correct. Most people
>>> here think that your H incorrectly determines that its incorrect
>>> simulation
>>
>> That H correctly simulates its input can be easily verified by every
>> sufficiently competent software engineer: It is verified that the
>> line-by-line execution trace of P produced by H exactly matches what
>> the line-by-line x86 source-code of P specifies.
>
> Yes, everybody accepts that a few lines are correctly simulated.
Great!
> Most people do not accept the logic that if a few lines are simulated
> then the behaviour of the whole function is correctly simulated. In
> particular, the line where P calls H is essential for the behaviour of
> P, but one thinks that it is not correctly simulated.
>
The criteria is that H simulates P until H correctly determines that
this simulation would never stop running unless aborted.
void P(ptr x)
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
}
(a) Executed H simulates P
(b) that calls a simulated H that simulates P
(c) that calls a simulated H that simulates P...
Until H sees this repeating pattern aborts its simulation of P and
rejects P as specifying a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> would never stop running. In that case, Michael Sipser's saying does
>>> not apply.
>>> So, this information of Michael Sipser does not bring us any further.
>>> You still have to prove that your H is correct, before you can use it.
>>> Up to now, nobody seems to accept your proof.
>>>
>
> The sentence approved by Michael Sipser starts with a premise (If ...).
> You duty is to prove that your H fits this premise. You can not reverse
> it and conclude from his approval that the premise is correct.
>
Yes it does.
The rest of the points can be proved by ordinary software engineering.
Since this is the same definition of a simulating halt decider that I
have been using for two years all of my prior posts still hold.
--
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 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web