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 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 21:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <tiai1e$13e3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58524 |
On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>> who the
>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not
>>>>>>>> be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just
>>>>>>> like we have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>>>>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that
>>>>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still
>>>>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>>>> final conclusion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>
>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>>>
>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of
>>> the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>
>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>
>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared to
>> the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>>
>> int D(ptr2 M)
>> {
>> if ( H(M, M) )
>> return 0;
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>> }
>>
>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its correct
>> simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely recursive
>> simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>>
>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>
>
> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>
Haven't you already agreed to this?
You can see that unless H aborts its correct simulation of D that D
would never stop running.
You can also see that this meets the *now affirmed correct*
"D would never stop running unless aborted"
criterion measure provided above.
--
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 | 2022-10-13 23:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <5h42L.330515$9Yp5.941@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #58525 |
On 10/13/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>>> who the
>>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not
>>>>>>>>> be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review
>>>>>>>>> this same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all
>>>>>>>> see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors,
>>>>>>>> just like we have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that
>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser
>>>>>>>> that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are
>>>>>>>> still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>>>>> final conclusion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>>>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>>>>
>>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of
>>>> the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>>
>>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>>
>>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared
>>> to the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>>>
>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>> {
>>> if ( H(M, M) )
>>> return 0;
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>> }
>>>
>>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its correct
>>> simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely
>>> recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>>>
>>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
>>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>>
>>
>> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>>
>
> Haven't you already agreed to this?
To what?
> You can see that unless H aborts its correct simulation of D that D
> would never stop running.
>
> You can also see that this meets the *now affirmed correct*
> "D would never stop running unless aborted"
> criterion measure provided above.
>
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.
THe problem is that if H does abort its simulation, it does so based on
INCORRECTLY presuming that D is using that other H, which it does't.
You don't seem to understand that when you "change" H to make the "does
it need to abort" test, you don't change any other copy/instance of that
as you do so.
You just are using a BROKEN equivalence model to DECEPTIVELY claim that
it is what should happen.
If H(D,D) returns 0, then D(D) Halts so H(D,D) returning 0 was wrong.
Your "unless it aborts" argument is based on incorrect definitions, and
thus is wrong.
You are just proving your stupidity and duplicity.
You have FAILED.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 22:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <tial05$20qb4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58526 |
On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/13/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>>>> who the
>>>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not
>>>>>>>>>> be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what
>>>>>>>>> is actually corret.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review
>>>>>>>>>> this same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all
>>>>>>>>> see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors,
>>>>>>>>> just like we have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that
>>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser
>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are
>>>>>>>>> still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with
>>>>>>> your final conclusion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show
>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>>>>>
>>>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation
>>>>> of the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>>>
>>>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>>>
>>>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared
>>>> to the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>>>>
>>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>>> {
>>>> if ( H(M, M) )
>>>> return 0;
>>>> return 1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its correct
>>>> simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely
>>>> recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>>>>
>>>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
>>>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>>>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>>>
>>
>> Haven't you already agreed to this?
>
> To what?
>
>> You can see that unless H aborts its correct simulation of D that D
>> would never stop running.
>>
>> You can also see that this meets the *now affirmed correct*
>> "D would never stop running unless aborted"
>> criterion measure provided above.
>>
>
> 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.
>
Quoted from above.
>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
The source-code proves that the simulation is correct and that H
correctly predicts that its correctly simulated input would never stop
running unless aborted.
That you will not bother to look at this code is not my fault:
*Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version*
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
--
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 | 2022-10-13 23:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <3152L.77206$C8y5.24926@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #58527 |
On 10/13/22 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>>>>> who the
>>>>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would
>>>>>>>>>>> not be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what
>>>>>>>>>> is actually corret.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember,
>>>>>>>>>> they said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your
>>>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review
>>>>>>>>>>> this same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all
>>>>>>>>>> see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors,
>>>>>>>>>> just like we have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as
>>>>>>>>> one accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that
>>>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser
>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you
>>>>>>>>>> are still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with
>>>>>>>> your final conclusion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show
>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the
>>>>>> word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation
>>>>>> of the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared
>>>>> to the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>>>>>
>>>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>>>> {
>>>>> if ( H(M, M) )
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> return 1;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its correct
>>>>> simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely
>>>>> recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
>>>>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>>>>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't you already agreed to this?
>>
>> To what?
>>
>>> You can see that unless H aborts its correct simulation of D that D
>>> would never stop running.
>>>
>>> You can also see that this meets the *now affirmed correct*
>>> "D would never stop running unless aborted"
>>> criterion measure provided above.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Quoted from above.
> >>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
> >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>
> The source-code proves that the simulation is correct and that H
> correctly predicts that its correctly simulated input would never stop
> running unless aborted.
No, it doesn't.
YOu are just too stupid to see yor error, as you have proved.
You have shown that a DIFFERENT D, built on an H that doesn't abort its
simulatiion doesn't halt.
Your program can show that the D built on the H that anwers H(D,D) does
Halt.
Thus, BY THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM, H is wrong.
>
> That you will not bother to look at this code is not my fault:
>
> *Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version*
> (a) x86utm operating system
> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
>
>
Right, and that program shows that D(D) Halts, thus the CORRECT
Simulation of it, done by ANYTHING that does a actual correct simultion
of it, which does NOT include the H that it calls, since that has been
defined a one of the H's that returns 0 from H(D,D), will halt.
You are just proving your stupidity.
FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 23:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <tiamsh$20uma$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58529 |
On 10/13/2022 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/13/22 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter who the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would
>>>>>>>>>>>> not be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what
>>>>>>>>>>> is actually corret.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember,
>>>>>>>>>>> they said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>> your results.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is enough credibility to get other qualified experts to
>>>>>>>>>>>> review this same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all
>>>>>>>>>>> see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors,
>>>>>>>>>>> just like we have.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as
>>>>>>>>>> one accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that
>>>>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you
>>>>>>>>>>> are still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include
>>>>>>>>>> his agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to
>>>>>>>>>> indicate that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with
>>>>>>>>> your final conclusion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed
>>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show
>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>>>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>>>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>>>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the
>>>>>>> word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation
>>>>>>> of the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace
>>>>>> compared to the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern
>>>>>> that it uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> if ( H(M, M) )
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its
>>>>>> correct simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in
>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its
>>>>>> simulation of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>>>>>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Haven't you already agreed to this?
>>>
>>> To what?
>>>
>>>> You can see that unless H aborts its correct simulation of D that D
>>>> would never stop running.
>>>>
>>>> You can also see that this meets the *now affirmed correct*
>>>> "D would never stop running unless aborted"
>>>> criterion measure provided above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Quoted from above.
>> >>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>> >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>
>> The source-code proves that the simulation is correct and that H
>> correctly predicts that its correctly simulated input would never stop
>> running unless aborted.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> YOu are just too stupid to see yor error, as you have proved.
>
> You have shown that a DIFFERENT D, built on an H that doesn't abort its
> simulatiion doesn't halt.
>
> Your program can show that the D built on the H that anwers H(D,D) does
> Halt.
>
> Thus, BY THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM, H is wrong.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> That you will not bother to look at this code is not my fault:
>>
>> *Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version*
>> (a) x86utm operating system
>> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
>> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within
>> Halt7.c
>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
>>
>>
>
> Right, and that program shows that D(D) Halts, thus the CORRECT
> Simulation of it, done by ANYTHING that does a actual correct simultion
> of it, which does NOT include the H that it calls, since that has been
> defined a one of the H's that returns 0 from H(D,D), will halt.
>
> You are just proving your stupidity.
>
> FAIL.
It is not a matter of that it is a matter of the behavior of D correctly
simulated by H.
--
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 | 2022-10-14 07:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <08c2L.115202$tRy7.39762@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #58530 |
On 10/14/22 12:00 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 10/13/22 11:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>> That you will not bother to look at this code is not my fault: >>> >>> *Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version* >>> (a) x86utm operating system >>> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows >>> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within >>> Halt7.c >>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip >>> >>> >> >> Right, and that program shows that D(D) Halts, thus the CORRECT >> Simulation of it, done by ANYTHING that does a actual correct >> simultion of it, which does NOT include the H that it calls, since >> that has been defined a one of the H's that returns 0 from H(D,D), >> will halt. >> >> You are just proving your stupidity. >> >> FAIL. > > It is not a matter of that it is a matter of the behavior of D correctly > simulated by H. > So, you admit that you aren't working with things that are actually Halt Deciders, ad thus not working on the Halting Problem! Remember, ANY thing that is a Halt Decider, to meet the requirements, must return 1 (Halting) from the call H(P,d) if P(d) will Halt. Basic definition of what a Halt Decider is. Since you claim your H is "correct" to give a different answer, it isn't a Halt Decider. DEFINITION. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 09:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <tibqq9$jeu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58535 |
On 10/14/2022 6:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 10/14/22 12:00 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/13/2022 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> On 10/13/22 11:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> That you will not bother to look at this code is not my fault: >>>> >>>> *Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version* >>>> (a) x86utm operating system >>>> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows >>>> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within >>>> Halt7.c >>>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Right, and that program shows that D(D) Halts, thus the CORRECT >>> Simulation of it, done by ANYTHING that does a actual correct >>> simultion of it, which does NOT include the H that it calls, since >>> that has been defined a one of the H's that returns 0 from H(D,D), >>> will halt. >>> >>> You are just proving your stupidity. >>> >>> FAIL. >> >> It is not a matter of that it is a matter of the behavior of D >> correctly simulated by H. >> > > So, you admit that you aren't working with things that are actually Halt > Deciders, ad thus not working on the Halting Problem! > Professor Sipser has agreed that it is correct for H to base its halt status decision on the behavior of D simulated by H. *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. -- 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 | 2022-10-14 13:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <r4h2L.404268$wLZ8.305014@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #58539 |
On 10/14/22 10:13 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/14/2022 6:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 10/14/22 12:00 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/13/2022 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/13/22 11:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> That you will not bother to look at this code is not my fault: >>>>> >>>>> *Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version* >>>>> (a) x86utm operating system >>>>> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows >>>>> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within >>>>> Halt7.c >>>>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, and that program shows that D(D) Halts, thus the CORRECT >>>> Simulation of it, done by ANYTHING that does a actual correct >>>> simultion of it, which does NOT include the H that it calls, since >>>> that has been defined a one of the H's that returns 0 from H(D,D), >>>> will halt. >>>> >>>> You are just proving your stupidity. >>>> >>>> FAIL. >>> >>> It is not a matter of that it is a matter of the behavior of D >>> correctly simulated by H. >>> >> >> So, you admit that you aren't working with things that are actually >> Halt Deciders, ad thus not working on the Halting Problem! >> > > Professor Sipser has agreed that it is correct for H to base its halt > status decision on the behavior of D simulated by H. > > *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. > > Right, based on the CORRECT simulation, H can try to figure out the answer. If it can CORRECTLY determine that the input would not halt from that, it can thus answer. Since it has been shown that D(D) Halts, H could NOT have "Correctly" determined that it never halts, because that isn't a true statement. All this shows is that your logic has a flaw in it, as if you have a proof for something that is demonstratably false, the proof must have an error, or the logic system is inconsistent. You don't seem to understand that, because you are apparently too stupid to handle that sort of logic. You H has shown that a DIFFERENT input is non-halting, that DIFFERENT D based on a DIFFERENT H (that doesn't abort) is non-halting. THis says NOTHING about THIS input and THIS D. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 23:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <tiamvb$abv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58529 |
On 10/13/2022 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/13/22 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter who the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would
>>>>>>>>>>>> not be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what
>>>>>>>>>>> is actually corret.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember,
>>>>>>>>>>> they said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>> your results.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is enough credibility to get other qualified experts to
>>>>>>>>>>>> review this same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all
>>>>>>>>>>> see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors,
>>>>>>>>>>> just like we have.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as
>>>>>>>>>> one accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that
>>>>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you
>>>>>>>>>>> are still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include
>>>>>>>>>> his agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to
>>>>>>>>>> indicate that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with
>>>>>>>>> your final conclusion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed
>>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show
>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>>>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>>>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>>>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the
>>>>>>> word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation
>>>>>>> of the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace
>>>>>> compared to the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern
>>>>>> that it uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> if ( H(M, M) )
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its
>>>>>> correct simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in
>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its
>>>>>> simulation of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>>>>>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Haven't you already agreed to this?
>>>
>>> To what?
>>>
>>>> You can see that unless H aborts its correct simulation of D that D
>>>> would never stop running.
>>>>
>>>> You can also see that this meets the *now affirmed correct*
>>>> "D would never stop running unless aborted"
>>>> criterion measure provided above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Quoted from above.
>> >>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>> >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>
>> The source-code proves that the simulation is correct and that H
>> correctly predicts that its correctly simulated input would never stop
>> running unless aborted.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> YOu are just too stupid to see yor error, as you have proved.
>
> You have shown that a DIFFERENT D, built on an H that doesn't abort its
> simulatiion doesn't halt.
>
> Your program can show that the D built on the H that anwers H(D,D) does
> Halt.
>
> Thus, BY THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM, H is wrong.
>
Because you don't care about truth you are too lazy to look at the
source-code.
>
>>
>> That you will not bother to look at this code is not my fault:
>>
>> *Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version*
>> (a) x86utm operating system
>> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
>> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within
>> Halt7.c
>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
--
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 | 2022-10-14 08:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <_fc2L.61618$kEr7.57190@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #58531 |
On 10/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: > > Because you don't care about truth you are too lazy to look at the > source-code. > Just proves your lack concern about Truth. What make you think I haven't? This just shows how little you understand what make truth. I HAVE downloaded your source code and have looked at it. Thus, you are just showing how easy lies drip off your lips. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 09:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <tibqse$jeu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58536 |
On 10/14/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 10/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> Because you don't care about truth you are too lazy to look at the >> source-code. >> > > Just proves your lack concern about Truth. > > What make you think I haven't? You keep making false assumptions about what it does and how it works. -- 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 | 2022-10-14 15:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <20221014153249.00007d5e@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58540 |
On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 09:14:37 -0500 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > On 10/14/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > > > > On 10/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: > >> > >> Because you don't care about truth you are too lazy to look at the > >> source-code. > >> > > > > Just proves your lack concern about Truth. > > > > What make you think I haven't? > > You keep making false assumptions about what it does and how it works. I know how it works .. it doesn't. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 13:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 |
| Message-ID | <pBg2L.134287$6gz7.76577@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #58540 |
On 10/14/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/14/2022 7:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 10/14/22 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> Because you don't care about truth you are too lazy to look at the >>> source-code. >>> >> >> Just proves your lack concern about Truth. >> >> What make you think I haven't? > > You keep making false assumptions about what it does and how it works. > Like what? Vague accusations are not proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 19:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RM02L.236328$BQA7.16021@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #58467 |
On 10/13/22 12:46 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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? >>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>> >>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to >>>>> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the >>>>> form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of >>>>> argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, >>>>> the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious >>>>> examples of using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority >>>>> is not a subject-matter expert >>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>> >>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>> >>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as the >>> opinion of Professor Sipser. >>> >>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >> >> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is sound >> using facts and logic in your own words. >> >> /Flibble >> > > I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified > expert in the field is inductively sound. Except that the field you are talking aobut is not subject to that form of Inductiove Reasoning. Note, the defintion of Inductive reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of observations is considered to derive a general principle.[1] It consists of making broad generalizations based on specific observations.[2] Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. If the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain; in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. Thus, inductive reasoning does not PROVE, but just provides evidence. > > 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. And since your H doesn't CORRECTLY DETERMINE that its simulated D would never stop running, that statement doesn't apply. Your arguement that tries to show it is INVALID because it changes the input. > > When one accepts this definition of a simulating halt decider then my > code shows that H correctly determines the halt status of D. > > When one rejects that definition of a simulating halt decider then my > proof loses its required basis. > NO, when you reject the definition of correct simulation, your arguement just falls appart. You are just proving your ignorance of everything you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 18:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ypH1L.193963$479c.121186@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #58415 |
On 10/12/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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? >>> >> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. > > Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to > authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form > of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from > authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to > authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using > the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter > expert https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority So, you AGREE that you are using a fallcious argument? You do understand that just because one person, even if they are knowledgeable in the field says something, that is not actually PROOF of the statement. > >> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. > > And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as the > opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? > >> But >> Cleaning up you statement: >> "If H determines that its simulation of D would never >> stop running, might H abort the simulation and report >> that D specifies a non-halting machine? " >> > > H might do anything including ignoring its input and and playing a game > of tic-tac-toe with itself. > > When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that its > correct simulation of its input D would never stop running unless > aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its simulation of D and > report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. And since D Halts, H(D) returing 0 is wrong. Note, H does NOT correctly determint that its correct simulation of its input would never halt, but that the correct simulation by H' of D' would never halt. In fact, we can show that the correct simulation of D by H' WILL Halt, so H is incorrect. FAIL. > >> This is true. But H cannot determine in every case that >> the simulation will not stop running and therefore does >> not itself alwaysstop running. > > I was only referring to Sipser's own H and D. > > That Professor Sipser agrees with the essential definition of a > simulating halt decider seems to be an effective rebuttal to everyone > here that is not in the same ball park of subject matter expertise. An I suspect that you didn't show him the full context of your statement, and when shown that he will change his minde. This just shows that you are someone competent at deception to unsuspecting victims. > > My purpose in getting Sipser's agreement on this key point is to > establish enough credibility to get other world renown subject matter > experts to review my work. A consensus of these subject matter experts > would seem to form strong evidence that I am correct. > > *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof > > You still fail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 17:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7gtc$1jb5g$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58423 |
On 10/12/2022 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/12/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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? >>>> >>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >> >> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to >> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the >> form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument >> from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal >> to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious examples of >> using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority is not a >> subject-matter expert >> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority > > So, you AGREE that you are using a fallcious argument? > > You do understand that just because one person, even if they are > knowledgeable in the field says something, that is not actually PROOF of > the statement. Even a universal consensus of every living being on the planet is not proof. The agreement of one world class expert in the field is enough to get other world class experts to spend a few minutes looking it over. >> >>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >> >> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as the >> opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >> >>> But >>> Cleaning up you statement: >>> "If H determines that its simulation of D would never >>> stop running, might H abort the simulation and report >>> that D specifies a non-halting machine? " >>> >> >> H might do anything including ignoring its input and and playing a >> game of tic-tac-toe with itself. >> >> When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that its >> correct simulation of its input D would never stop running unless >> aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its simulation of D >> and report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > And since D Halts, H(D) returing 0 is wrong. > > Note, H does NOT correctly determint that its correct simulation of its > input would never halt, but that the correct simulation by H' of D' > would never halt. Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior D simulated by H is the correct measure for the halt status decision by H of D. I worked on this for two years full time after I knew his email address and phone number so that I could minimize the use of his time validating my work. Validating the notion of a simulating halt decider was the last sticking point. This key element needed a world class expert to weigh in on. -- 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 | 2022-10-12 20:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5CI1L.576753$Ny99.150067@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #58425 |
On 10/12/22 6:59 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/12/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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? >>>>> >>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>> >>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to >>> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the >>> form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument >>> from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal >>> to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious examples of >>> using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority is not a >>> subject-matter expert >>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >> >> So, you AGREE that you are using a fallcious argument? >> >> You do understand that just because one person, even if they are >> knowledgeable in the field says something, that is not actually PROOF >> of the statement. > > Even a universal consensus of every living being on the planet is not > proof. The agreement of one world class expert in the field is enough to > get other world class experts to spend a few minutes looking it over. > >>> >>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>> >>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as the >>> opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>> >>>> But >>>> Cleaning up you statement: >>>> "If H determines that its simulation of D would never >>>> stop running, might H abort the simulation and report >>>> that D specifies a non-halting machine? " >>>> >>> >>> H might do anything including ignoring its input and and playing a >>> game of tic-tac-toe with itself. >>> >>> When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that its >>> correct simulation of its input D would never stop running unless >>> aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its simulation of D >>> and report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> And since D Halts, H(D) returing 0 is wrong. >> >> Note, H does NOT correctly determint that its correct simulation of >> its input would never halt, but that the correct simulation by H' of >> D' would never halt. > > Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior D simulated by H is the > correct measure for the halt status decision by H of D. Did you explain that YOUR definition of "Correctly Simulated" included changing the definition of the copy of H in D to also be a pure smulator? If you don't answer a clear YES, then you are admitting that you were being deceptive. > > I worked on this for two years full time after I knew his email address > and phone number so that I could minimize the use of his time validating > my work. > > Validating the notion of a simulating halt decider was the last sticking > point. This key element needed a world class expert to weigh in on. > Maybe I should drop by his office and show him your papers. I think you are guilty of lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 20:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7nvb$1juh6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58428 |
On 10/12/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/12/22 6:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/12/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>
>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to
>>>> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the
>>>> form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of
>>>> argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments,
>>>> the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious
>>>> examples of using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority is
>>>> not a subject-matter expert
>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>
>>> So, you AGREE that you are using a fallcious argument?
>>>
>>> You do understand that just because one person, even if they are
>>> knowledgeable in the field says something, that is not actually PROOF
>>> of the statement.
>>
>> Even a universal consensus of every living being on the planet is not
>> proof. The agreement of one world class expert in the field is enough
>> to get other world class experts to spend a few minutes looking it over.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>
>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as the
>>>> opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>
>>>>> But
>>>>> Cleaning up you statement:
>>>>> "If H determines that its simulation of D would never
>>>>> stop running, might H abort the simulation and report
>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting machine? "
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> H might do anything including ignoring its input and and playing a
>>>> game of tic-tac-toe with itself.
>>>>
>>>> When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that its
>>>> correct simulation of its input D would never stop running unless
>>>> aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its simulation of D
>>>> and report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> And since D Halts, H(D) returing 0 is wrong.
>>>
>>> Note, H does NOT correctly determint that its correct simulation of
>>> its input would never halt, but that the correct simulation by H' of
>>> D' would never halt.
>>
>> Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior D simulated by H is the
>> correct measure for the halt status decision by H of D.
>
> Did you explain that YOUR definition of "Correctly Simulated" included
> changing the definition of the copy of H in D to also be a pure smulator?
>
> If you don't answer a clear YES, then you are admitting that you were
> being deceptive.
>
What professor Sipser agreed to is quoted below:
>>
>> I worked on this for two years full time after I knew his email
>> address and phone number so that I could minimize the use of his time
>> validating my work.
>>
>> Validating the notion of a simulating halt decider was the last
>> sticking point. This key element needed a world class expert to weigh
>> in on.
>>
>
> Maybe I should drop by his office and show him your papers.
I forgot you are an MIT grad.
*He has already seen the link to my rebuttal of his diagonal proof*
(see below) All of my other papers are way too verbose.
It would be great if you could get him to spend time on carefully
analyzing this 1.5 page paper. It may only take him 15 minutes of
intense concentration. He understands and accepts the notion of a
simulating halt decider. This is my most important breakthrough.
<quoted email to professor Sipser>
Professor Sipser:
Here is what I would like to say:
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.
</quoted email to professor Sipser>
<quoted reply from professor Sipser>
Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
</quoted reply from professor 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 21:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6bK1L.134262$6gz7.55745@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #58433 |
On 10/12/22 9:00 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 10/12/22 6:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/12/2022 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/12/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>> >>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to >>>>> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the >>>>> form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of >>>>> argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, >>>>> the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious >>>>> examples of using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority is >>>>> not a subject-matter expert >>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>> >>>> So, you AGREE that you are using a fallcious argument? >>>> >>>> You do understand that just because one person, even if they are >>>> knowledgeable in the field says something, that is not actually >>>> PROOF of the statement. >>> >>> Even a universal consensus of every living being on the planet is not >>> proof. The agreement of one world class expert in the field is enough >>> to get other world class experts to spend a few minutes looking it over. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>> >>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>> >>>>>> But >>>>>> Cleaning up you statement: >>>>>> "If H determines that its simulation of D would never >>>>>> stop running, might H abort the simulation and report >>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting machine? " >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> H might do anything including ignoring its input and and playing a >>>>> game of tic-tac-toe with itself. >>>>> >>>>> When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that >>>>> its correct simulation of its input D would never stop running >>>>> unless aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its >>>>> simulation of D and report that D specifies a non-halting sequence >>>>> of configurations. >>>> >>>> And since D Halts, H(D) returing 0 is wrong. >>>> >>>> Note, H does NOT correctly determint that its correct simulation of >>>> its input would never halt, but that the correct simulation by H' of >>>> D' would never halt. >>> >>> Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior D simulated by H is the >>> correct measure for the halt status decision by H of D. >> >> Did you explain that YOUR definition of "Correctly Simulated" included >> changing the definition of the copy of H in D to also be a pure smulator? >> >> If you don't answer a clear YES, then you are admitting that you were >> being deceptive. >> > > What professor Sipser agreed to is quoted below: Which means you still need to prove that H is CORRECT in determining that the ACTUAL INPUT would ever stop if correctly simulated (by H or whatever). Note, he han't agrees that you get to change the code of the H that D calls, so that H still will abort its simulation if this H does eventually abort, and that breaks > >>> >>> I worked on this for two years full time after I knew his email >>> address and phone number so that I could minimize the use of his time >>> validating my work. >>> >>> Validating the notion of a simulating halt decider was the last >>> sticking point. This key element needed a world class expert to weigh >>> in on. >>> >> >> Maybe I should drop by his office and show him your papers. > > I forgot you are an MIT grad. > > *He has already seen the link to my rebuttal of his diagonal proof* > (see below) All of my other papers are way too verbose. > > It would be great if you could get him to spend time on carefully > analyzing this 1.5 page paper. It may only take him 15 minutes of > intense concentration. He understands and accepts the notion of a > simulating halt decider. This is my most important breakthrough. > > <quoted email to professor Sipser> > Professor Sipser: > > Here is what I would like to say: > > 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. > </quoted email to professor Sipser> > > <quoted reply from professor Sipser> > Looks ok. Thanks for checking. > </quoted reply from professor Sipser> > > And you still have the problem of proving that H "correctly determines" since the input is FIXED to be using the definition of the H that does abort, since that IS the code that the H that it is calling uses. Note, that in the past I have even agreed that if H can CORRECTLY determine that THE correct simulation of the input won't halt, then it is correct to abort. The problem you run into is that if H is defined to abort this pattern, then it NEVER does the complete simulation to show that it wouldn't abort, so condtions based on the behavior of solely this H become non-helpful as non-existant thing don't prove properties of the existant. It isn't that H can be correct answering if it is correct in determining that is the issue, that is a Tautology, it is try to show your (incorrect) idea that H can answer about an input based on the altered version of H instead of the actual input, and as you have pointed out, it is a lying bastard who forces H to decide on something which isn't the input, so H can only decide on the input base on the ORIGINAL (i.e. aborting) version of H since that IS what it is given by the template. That is where you fail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 21:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7rlk$1juh6$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58438 |
On 10/12/2022 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/12/22 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/12/22 6:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to
>>>>>> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the
>>>>>> form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of
>>>>>> argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments,
>>>>>> the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious
>>>>>> examples of using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority
>>>>>> is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you AGREE that you are using a fallcious argument?
>>>>>
>>>>> You do understand that just because one person, even if they are
>>>>> knowledgeable in the field says something, that is not actually
>>>>> PROOF of the statement.
>>>>
>>>> Even a universal consensus of every living being on the planet is
>>>> not proof. The agreement of one world class expert in the field is
>>>> enough to get other world class experts to spend a few minutes
>>>> looking it over.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> Cleaning up you statement:
>>>>>>> "If H determines that its simulation of D would never
>>>>>>> stop running, might H abort the simulation and report
>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting machine? "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H might do anything including ignoring its input and and playing a
>>>>>> game of tic-tac-toe with itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that
>>>>>> its correct simulation of its input D would never stop running
>>>>>> unless aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its
>>>>>> simulation of D and report that D specifies a non-halting sequence
>>>>>> of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> And since D Halts, H(D) returing 0 is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, H does NOT correctly determint that its correct simulation of
>>>>> its input would never halt, but that the correct simulation by H'
>>>>> of D' would never halt.
>>>>
>>>> Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior D simulated by H is the
>>>> correct measure for the halt status decision by H of D.
>>>
>>> Did you explain that YOUR definition of "Correctly Simulated"
>>> included changing the definition of the copy of H in D to also be a
>>> pure smulator?
>>>
>>> If you don't answer a clear YES, then you are admitting that you were
>>> being deceptive.
>>>
>>
>> What professor Sipser agreed to is quoted below:
>
> Which means you still need to prove that H is CORRECT in determining
> that the ACTUAL INPUT would ever stop if correctly simulated (by H or
> whatever).
>
> Note, he han't agrees that you get to change the code of the H that D
> calls, so that H still will abort its simulation if this H does
> eventually abort, and that breaks
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I worked on this for two years full time after I knew his email
>>>> address and phone number so that I could minimize the use of his
>>>> time validating my work.
>>>>
>>>> Validating the notion of a simulating halt decider was the last
>>>> sticking point. This key element needed a world class expert to
>>>> weigh in on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I should drop by his office and show him your papers.
>>
>> I forgot you are an MIT grad.
>>
>> *He has already seen the link to my rebuttal of his diagonal proof*
>> (see below) All of my other papers are way too verbose.
>>
>> It would be great if you could get him to spend time on carefully
>> analyzing this 1.5 page paper. It may only take him 15 minutes of
>> intense concentration. He understands and accepts the notion of a
>> simulating halt decider. This is my most important breakthrough.
>>
>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>> Professor Sipser:
>>
>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>
>> 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.
>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>
>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>
>>
>
> And you still have the problem of proving that H "correctly determines"
As I have said previously you cannot begin to understand this aspect
until after you grok all of the details of how H recognizes this
infinite recursion:
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
Infinite_Recursion(N);
}
That you refuse to do that simply proves that you are not sincere.
These details are contained in Halt7.c
Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
--
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 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web