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 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 13:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tic9l9$1j0n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58557 |
On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/14/2022 7:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/13/2022 12:28 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 8:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph >>>>>>>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <quoted email to 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> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting >>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>> proof? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to >>>>>>>> share a >>>>>>>> private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went >>>>>>>> exactly as >>>>>>>> you would expect. >>>>>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank >>>>>>> one's mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? >>>>>>> Can't find my copy to check it out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor Sipser specifically approved this precise verbiage as >>>>>> the abstract to my paper, linked below: >>>>>> >>>>>> <Sipser approved abstract> >>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following >>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else >>>>>> in this paper): >>>>>> >>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until >>>>>> H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop >>>>>> running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and >>>>>> correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of >>>>>> configurations. >>>>>> </Sipser approved abstract> >>>>>> >>>>>> to this paper: >>>>>> >>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>> >>>>> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same >>>>> mistake with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your >>>>> nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed that >>>>> your abstract correctly describes your paper but does not say that >>>>> the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is correct. This is the >>>>> same sort of brain fart you have when the H (your ridiculous >>>>> decider) is not the same on the outside and when it's called by P. >>>>> >>>>> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback >>>> >>>> >>>> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim >>>> >> paragraph is correct >>>> >> >>>> >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>> until H >>>> >> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>> >> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>> >> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>> >>>> This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. >>>> >>>>> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he actually >>>>> thought you had a break through on a major result, he would have >>>>> guided you into and through the paper prep, submission, and review >>>>> process. He would, at a minimum, invite you to give a talk at an >>>>> MIT seminar next time you were in town. And he would introduce you >>>>> around to many of your colleagues to be. None of those things >>>>> happened. Just thank him for being gracious and move on to another >>>>> problem while you still have time. >>>> >>>> He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This was not >>>> enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. >>>> >>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>> >>> >>> I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your argument >>> are visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself. >> >> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider > > Then why do you say the right answer for it isn't the same as that right > answer for a ACTUAL Halt Decider. > > H(P,d) must return HALTING (1) if P(d) Halts. > H(D,D) must return non-halting if the correct simulation of D by H would never stop running unless aborted. On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D > based on it is non-halting. -- 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 14:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <G2i2L.251770$51Rb.225032@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #58561 |
On 10/14/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >> >> Then why do you say the right answer for it isn't the same as that >> right answer for a ACTUAL Halt Decider. >> >> H(P,d) must return HALTING (1) if P(d) Halts. >> > H(D,D) must return non-halting if the correct simulation of D by H would > never stop running unless aborted. Right, and since theH that aborts its simulation doesn't DO a "Correct" simulation, this doesn't apply. Ha, that aborts its simulation needs to answer about the behavior of Da that is based on it, and the correct simulation of Da (which can't be done by Ha, since it aborts) shows that it does Halt, so therefore Ha didn't need to abort it simulation. Yes, the Hn that doesn't abort it simulation shows that Dn, built on Hn, is non-halting, but Hn(Dn,Dn) doesn't return an answer, so isn't "right" about this problem. It is noted that Hn(Da,Da) WILL correctly determine it to be halting, and Ha(Dn,Dn) will corrctly determine that to be non-halting, but those are NOT the require combinations to be a counter example. > > On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one > > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D > > based on it is non-halting. > So, you still don't understand that you keep on talking about two DIFFFERENT machines as if they were the same. That just shows your stupidity, and ignorance, and that you don't understand the meaning of truth. You just have buried your reputation under the pile of falsehoods that you state.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 14:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ticbuu$iv1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58562 |
On 10/14/2022 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/14/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >>> >>> Then why do you say the right answer for it isn't the same as that >>> right answer for a ACTUAL Halt Decider. >>> >>> H(P,d) must return HALTING (1) if P(d) Halts. >>> >> H(D,D) must return non-halting if the correct simulation of D by H >> would never stop running unless aborted. > > Right, and since theH that aborts its simulation doesn't DO a "Correct" > simulation, this doesn't apply. > > Ha, that aborts its simulation needs to answer about the behavior of Da > that is based on it, and the correct simulation of Da (which can't be > done by Ha, since it aborts) shows that it does Halt, so therefore Ha > didn't need to abort it simulation. > > Yes, the Hn that doesn't abort it simulation shows that Dn, built on Hn, > is non-halting, but Hn(Dn,Dn) doesn't return an answer, so isn't "right" > about this problem. > > It is noted that Hn(Da,Da) WILL correctly determine it to be halting, > and Ha(Dn,Dn) will corrctly determine that to be non-halting, but those > are NOT the require combinations to be a counter example. > >> >> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one >> > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D >> > based on it is non-halting. >> > > So, you still don't understand that you keep on talking about two > DIFFFERENT machines as if they were the same. *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. YOU AGREED TO THIS (1) D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted. THE SOURCE-CODE PROVES THIS (2) H correctly determines (1). THIS IS SELF-EVIDENT (3) This exactly meets the Sipser approved criteria. ∴ H is correct to abort its simulation of D and 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 15:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <B5j2L.112763$OR4c.9116@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #58563 |
On 10/14/22 3:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/14/2022 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/14/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >>>> >>>> Then why do you say the right answer for it isn't the same as that >>>> right answer for a ACTUAL Halt Decider. >>>> >>>> H(P,d) must return HALTING (1) if P(d) Halts. >>>> >>> H(D,D) must return non-halting if the correct simulation of D by H >>> would never stop running unless aborted. >> >> Right, and since theH that aborts its simulation doesn't DO a >> "Correct" simulation, this doesn't apply. >> >> Ha, that aborts its simulation needs to answer about the behavior of >> Da that is based on it, and the correct simulation of Da (which can't >> be done by Ha, since it aborts) shows that it does Halt, so therefore >> Ha didn't need to abort it simulation. >> >> Yes, the Hn that doesn't abort it simulation shows that Dn, built on >> Hn, is non-halting, but Hn(Dn,Dn) doesn't return an answer, so isn't >> "right" about this problem. >> >> It is noted that Hn(Da,Da) WILL correctly determine it to be halting, >> and Ha(Dn,Dn) will corrctly determine that to be non-halting, but >> those are NOT the require combinations to be a counter example. >> >>> >>> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one >>> > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D >>> > based on it is non-halting. >>> >> >> So, you still don't understand that you keep on talking about two >> DIFFFERENT machines as if they were the same. > > *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. > > YOU AGREED TO THIS > (1) D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted. No, I said the D based on an H that never aborts its simulation would be non-halting. You just don't understand Englsh well enough. That isn't the H you are talking about, since that H NEVER aborts its simulation and thus never returns that answer. > > THE SOURCE-CODE PROVES THIS > (2) H correctly determines (1). Nope. H determines that D(D) calls H(D,D) and INCORRECTLY presumes that this means that D will not halt. Your logic is invalid. > > THIS IS SELF-EVIDENT > (3) This exactly meets the Sipser approved criteria. Nope. Never proved (2). > > ∴ H is correct to abort its simulation of D and report that D specifies > a non-halting sequence of configurations. > Nope. You are just proving your stupidity by repeating statements that have been shown to be false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 15:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ticfmm$3gs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58567 |
On 10/14/2022 2:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/14/22 3:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/14/2022 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/14/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >>>>> >>>>> Then why do you say the right answer for it isn't the same as that >>>>> right answer for a ACTUAL Halt Decider. >>>>> >>>>> H(P,d) must return HALTING (1) if P(d) Halts. >>>>> >>>> H(D,D) must return non-halting if the correct simulation of D by H >>>> would never stop running unless aborted. >>> >>> Right, and since theH that aborts its simulation doesn't DO a >>> "Correct" simulation, this doesn't apply. >>> >>> Ha, that aborts its simulation needs to answer about the behavior of >>> Da that is based on it, and the correct simulation of Da (which can't >>> be done by Ha, since it aborts) shows that it does Halt, so therefore >>> Ha didn't need to abort it simulation. >>> >>> Yes, the Hn that doesn't abort it simulation shows that Dn, built on >>> Hn, is non-halting, but Hn(Dn,Dn) doesn't return an answer, so isn't >>> "right" about this problem. >>> >>> It is noted that Hn(Da,Da) WILL correctly determine it to be halting, >>> and Ha(Dn,Dn) will corrctly determine that to be non-halting, but >>> those are NOT the require combinations to be a counter example. >>> >>>> >>>> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one >>>> > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D >>>> > based on it is non-halting. >>>> >>> >>> So, you still don't understand that you keep on talking about two >>> DIFFFERENT machines as if they were the same. >> >> *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. >> >> YOU AGREED TO THIS >> (1) D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted. > > No, I said the D based on an H that never aborts its simulation would be > non-halting. That is the Sipser approved criteria. > You just don't understand Englsh well enough. > > That isn't the H you are talking about, since that H NEVER aborts its > simulation and thus never returns that answer. >> >> THE SOURCE-CODE PROVES THIS >> (2) H correctly determines (1). > > Nope. > > H determines that D(D) calls H(D,D) and INCORRECTLY presumes that this > means that D will not halt. You already agreed that the D correctly simulated by H never stops running unless its simulation is aborted, thus you already agreed that this "presumption" is a verified fact and not any mere presumption. -- 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 16:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <yDj2L.112766$OR4c.33500@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #58572 |
On 10/14/22 4:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/14/2022 2:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/14/22 3:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/14/2022 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/14/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >>>>>> >>>>>> Then why do you say the right answer for it isn't the same as that >>>>>> right answer for a ACTUAL Halt Decider. >>>>>> >>>>>> H(P,d) must return HALTING (1) if P(d) Halts. >>>>>> >>>>> H(D,D) must return non-halting if the correct simulation of D by H >>>>> would never stop running unless aborted. >>>> >>>> Right, and since theH that aborts its simulation doesn't DO a >>>> "Correct" simulation, this doesn't apply. >>>> >>>> Ha, that aborts its simulation needs to answer about the behavior of >>>> Da that is based on it, and the correct simulation of Da (which >>>> can't be done by Ha, since it aborts) shows that it does Halt, so >>>> therefore Ha didn't need to abort it simulation. >>>> >>>> Yes, the Hn that doesn't abort it simulation shows that Dn, built on >>>> Hn, is non-halting, but Hn(Dn,Dn) doesn't return an answer, so isn't >>>> "right" about this problem. >>>> >>>> It is noted that Hn(Da,Da) WILL correctly determine it to be >>>> halting, and Ha(Dn,Dn) will corrctly determine that to be >>>> non-halting, but those are NOT the require combinations to be a >>>> counter example. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one >>>>> > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D >>>>> > based on it is non-halting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, you still don't understand that you keep on talking about two >>>> DIFFFERENT machines as if they were the same. >>> >>> *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. >>> >>> YOU AGREED TO THIS >>> (1) D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted. >> >> No, I said the D based on an H that never aborts its simulation would >> be non-halting. > > That is the Sipser approved criteria. > >> You just don't understand Englsh well enough. >> >> That isn't the H you are talking about, since that H NEVER aborts its >> simulation and thus never returns that answer. >>> >>> THE SOURCE-CODE PROVES THIS >>> (2) H correctly determines (1). >> >> Nope. >> >> H determines that D(D) calls H(D,D) and INCORRECTLY presumes that this >> means that D will not halt. > > You already agreed that the D correctly simulated by H never stops > running unless its simulation is aborted, thus you already agreed that > this "presumption" is a verified fact and not any mere presumption. > > That isn't what I said, and you know it, so you are just shown to be a liar. I said if H never aborts its simulation, then the D built on that H will never stop. Since that isn't the H that you are talking about, since you are saying that your H WILL abort its simulation, that doesn't apply. The H that abort, doesn't "Correctly Simulate" its input, it only PARTIALLY simulates its input. Note, "unless" is a bad word to use in describing an actual alrogithm, as it will or will not do the action (perhaps based on a computational condition). So. you are just futhering the proof of your stupidity, showing you don't understand even the basic technical words of the field. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 15:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tici1d$10uj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58574 |
On 10/14/2022 3:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/14/22 4:09 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/14/2022 2:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/14/22 3:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/14/2022 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/14/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then why do you say the right answer for it isn't the same as >>>>>>> that right answer for a ACTUAL Halt Decider. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H(P,d) must return HALTING (1) if P(d) Halts. >>>>>>> >>>>>> H(D,D) must return non-halting if the correct simulation of D by H >>>>>> would never stop running unless aborted. >>>>> >>>>> Right, and since theH that aborts its simulation doesn't DO a >>>>> "Correct" simulation, this doesn't apply. >>>>> >>>>> Ha, that aborts its simulation needs to answer about the behavior >>>>> of Da that is based on it, and the correct simulation of Da (which >>>>> can't be done by Ha, since it aborts) shows that it does Halt, so >>>>> therefore Ha didn't need to abort it simulation. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the Hn that doesn't abort it simulation shows that Dn, built >>>>> on Hn, is non-halting, but Hn(Dn,Dn) doesn't return an answer, so >>>>> isn't "right" about this problem. >>>>> >>>>> It is noted that Hn(Da,Da) WILL correctly determine it to be >>>>> halting, and Ha(Dn,Dn) will corrctly determine that to be >>>>> non-halting, but those are NOT the require combinations to be a >>>>> counter example. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one >>>>>> > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D >>>>>> > based on it is non-halting. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, you still don't understand that you keep on talking about two >>>>> DIFFFERENT machines as if they were the same. >>>> >>>> *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. >>>> >>>> YOU AGREED TO THIS >>>> (1) D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted. >>> >>> No, I said the D based on an H that never aborts its simulation would >>> be non-halting. >> >> That is the Sipser approved criteria. >> >>> You just don't understand Englsh well enough. >>> >>> That isn't the H you are talking about, since that H NEVER aborts its >>> simulation and thus never returns that answer. >>>> >>>> THE SOURCE-CODE PROVES THIS >>>> (2) H correctly determines (1). >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> H determines that D(D) calls H(D,D) and INCORRECTLY presumes that >>> this means that D will not halt. >> >> You already agreed that the D correctly simulated by H never stops >> running unless its simulation is aborted, thus you already agreed that >> this "presumption" is a verified fact and not any mere presumption. >> >> > > That isn't what I said, and you know it, so you are just shown to be a > liar. > > I said if H never aborts its simulation, then the D built on that H will > never stop. That is the exact Sipser approved criteria for H to abort its simulation and report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. Now all you need to know is exactly how H correctly predicts: "if H never aborts its simulation, then the D built on that H will never stop." -- 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 17:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <G5k2L.202402$479c.141616@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #58578 |
On 10/14/22 4:49 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/14/2022 3:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/14/22 4:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/14/2022 2:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/14/22 3:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/14/2022 1:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then why do you say the right answer for it isn't the same as >>>>>>>> that right answer for a ACTUAL Halt Decider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H(P,d) must return HALTING (1) if P(d) Halts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> H(D,D) must return non-halting if the correct simulation of D by >>>>>>> H would never stop running unless aborted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, and since theH that aborts its simulation doesn't DO a >>>>>> "Correct" simulation, this doesn't apply. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ha, that aborts its simulation needs to answer about the behavior >>>>>> of Da that is based on it, and the correct simulation of Da (which >>>>>> can't be done by Ha, since it aborts) shows that it does Halt, so >>>>>> therefore Ha didn't need to abort it simulation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the Hn that doesn't abort it simulation shows that Dn, built >>>>>> on Hn, is non-halting, but Hn(Dn,Dn) doesn't return an answer, so >>>>>> isn't "right" about this problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is noted that Hn(Da,Da) WILL correctly determine it to be >>>>>> halting, and Ha(Dn,Dn) will corrctly determine that to be >>>>>> non-halting, but those are NOT the require combinations to be a >>>>>> counter example. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one >>>>>>> > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D >>>>>>> > based on it is non-halting. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you still don't understand that you keep on talking about two >>>>>> DIFFFERENT machines as if they were the same. >>>>> >>>>> *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. >>>>> >>>>> YOU AGREED TO THIS >>>>> (1) D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless >>>>> aborted. >>>> >>>> No, I said the D based on an H that never aborts its simulation >>>> would be non-halting. >>> >>> That is the Sipser approved criteria. >>> >>>> You just don't understand Englsh well enough. >>>> >>>> That isn't the H you are talking about, since that H NEVER aborts >>>> its simulation and thus never returns that answer. >>>>> >>>>> THE SOURCE-CODE PROVES THIS >>>>> (2) H correctly determines (1). >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> H determines that D(D) calls H(D,D) and INCORRECTLY presumes that >>>> this means that D will not halt. >>> >>> You already agreed that the D correctly simulated by H never stops >>> running unless its simulation is aborted, thus you already agreed >>> that this "presumption" is a verified fact and not any mere presumption. >>> >>> >> >> That isn't what I said, and you know it, so you are just shown to be a >> liar. >> >> I said if H never aborts its simulation, then the D built on that H >> will never stop. > > That is the exact Sipser approved criteria for H to abort its simulation > and report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. Nope, he said that if H correctly determines by a correct simulation of THIS input, that is exactly as given, that it will never stop, then it could correctly report that. There is NO mention of looking at the behavior of DIFFERENT machines. THe input D uses THIS H, which DOES abort, and thus it WILL Halt, so you can't possible correctly say that it won't. FAIL. > > Now all you need to know is exactly how H correctly predicts: > "if H never aborts its simulation, then the D built on that H will never > stop." > Since the predicate of that statement isn't true for the H that answers, you can't assert the conclusion for that H. Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity. You seem to think that all your H's are the same, which they aren't. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 01:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery |
| Message-ID | <878rlios28.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #58557 |
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >> 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 my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop >> running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of >> this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. > > Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it itself > does. But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has been for years) that H can decide based on what would happen if H were different. It's all just a snow storm of words to hide the rather silly assertion that false is the correct answer for some halting computations. And, just to be 100% clear, there is absolutely no doubt that this is the ruse PO is truing to sneak past the unwary reader. He has explicitly re-defined "halting" to include "every element of the conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a few more" Why? Well, when asked "do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the 'correct' answer even though P(P) halts?" he replied "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts." How do we know that the supposed "correct" answer for one computation is based on the actual correct answer for a different computation? He told us explicitly: "we can prove that Halts() did make the correct halting decision when we comment out the part of Halts() that makes this decision and H_Hat() remains in infinite recursion" I know you know all this. I am just surprised to see "right" as the first word after PO's deceptive quote. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 19:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <ticutp$29je6$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58615 |
On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > >> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: > >>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> and my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop >>> running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of >>> this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. >> >> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it itself >> does. > > But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has been for > years) that H can decide based on what would happen if H were > different. > A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD never aborted its simulation of this non-halting input. To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, thus never reports. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 20:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <2jn2L.77977$Ve%5.42318@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #58619 |
On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >> >>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >> >>>> 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 my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop >>>> running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of >>>> this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. >>> >>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it itself >>> does. >> >> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has been for >> years) that H can decide based on what would happen if H were >> different. >> > A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the behavior of what > its non-halting input would do if this SHD never aborted its simulation > of this non-halting input. > > To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a loop is > infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, thus never reports. > THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides on what the behavior is of the machine the input represents. Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider. A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the dependence of the definiton on itself. THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders can't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <20221015094032.000075e7@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58624 |
On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: > > On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > >> > >>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: > >> > >>>> 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 my code proves that D correctly simulated by > >>>> H would never stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the > >>>> non-halting criteria of this halt decider. You have agreed that > >>>> it meet this criteria. > >>> > >>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it itself > >>> does. > >> > >> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has been > >> for years) that H can decide based on what would happen if H were > >> different. > >> > > A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the behavior of > > what its non-halting input would do if this SHD never aborted its > > simulation of this non-halting input. > > > > To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a loop is > > infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, thus never > > reports. > > THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides on > what the behavior is of the machine the input represents. > > Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD that > gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look at > non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider. > > A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider would > report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT SIMULATION > (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the dependence of > the definiton on itself. > > THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that definition, but > that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders can't exist. The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the actual behaviour the input represents. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 08:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <tiebtp$2o4hc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58647 |
On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>> 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 my code proves that D correctly simulated by >>>>>> H would never stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the >>>>>> non-halting criteria of this halt decider. You have agreed that >>>>>> it meet this criteria. >>>>> >>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it itself >>>>> does. >>>> >>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has been >>>> for years) that H can decide based on what would happen if H were >>>> different. >>>> >>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the behavior of >>> what its non-halting input would do if this SHD never aborted its >>> simulation of this non-halting input. >>> >>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a loop is >>> infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, thus never >>> reports. >> >> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides on >> what the behavior is of the machine the input represents. >> >> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD that >> gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look at >> non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider. >> >> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider would >> report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT SIMULATION >> (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the dependence of >> the definiton on itself. >> >> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that definition, but >> that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders can't exist. > > The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the > actual behaviour the input represents. > > /Flibble > Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt decider. -- 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 | 2022-10-15 14:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <20221015142030.00005e53@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58651 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 > > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > > > >> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: > >>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> 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 my code proves that D correctly > >>>>>> simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted by H, > >>>>>> thus meeting the non-halting criteria of this halt decider. > >>>>>> You have agreed that it meet this criteria. > >>>>> > >>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it > >>>>> itself does. > >>>> > >>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has > >>>> been for years) that H can decide based on what would happen if > >>>> H were different. > >>>> > >>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the behavior of > >>> what its non-halting input would do if this SHD never aborted its > >>> simulation of this non-halting input. > >>> > >>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a loop is > >>> infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, thus never > >>> reports. > >> > >> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides on > >> what the behavior is of the machine the input represents. > >> > >> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD that > >> gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look at > >> non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider. > >> > >> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider > >> would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT > >> SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the > >> dependence of the definiton on itself. > >> > >> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that definition, > >> but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders can't exist. > > > > The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on > > the actual behaviour the input represents. > > > > /Flibble > > > > Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt > decider. Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and I didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the ground up and it actually works unlike yours. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 08:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <tiecig$2o4hc$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58653 |
On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500 > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 my code proves that D correctly >>>>>>>> simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted by H, >>>>>>>> thus meeting the non-halting criteria of this halt decider. >>>>>>>> You have agreed that it meet this criteria. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it >>>>>>> itself does. >>>>>> >>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has >>>>>> been for years) that H can decide based on what would happen if >>>>>> H were different. >>>>>> >>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the behavior of >>>>> what its non-halting input would do if this SHD never aborted its >>>>> simulation of this non-halting input. >>>>> >>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a loop is >>>>> infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, thus never >>>>> reports. >>>> >>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides on >>>> what the behavior is of the machine the input represents. >>>> >>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD that >>>> gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look at >>>> non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider. >>>> >>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider >>>> would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT >>>> SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the >>>> dependence of the definiton on itself. >>>> >>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that definition, >>>> but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders can't exist. >>> >>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on >>> the actual behaviour the input represents. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt >> decider. > > Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and I > didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the ground > up and it actually works unlike yours. > > /Flibble When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me and you stealing my work. -- 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 | 2022-10-15 14:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <20221015143157.00007c4f@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58657 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500 > > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 > >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 my code proves that D > >>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless > >>>>>>>> aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of this > >>>>>>>> halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it > >>>>>>> itself does. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has > >>>>>> been for years) that H can decide based on what would happen if > >>>>>> H were different. > >>>>>> > >>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the behavior > >>>>> of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD never > >>>>> aborted its simulation of this non-halting input. > >>>>> > >>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a loop > >>>>> is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, thus never > >>>>> reports. > >>>> > >>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides > >>>> on what the behavior is of the machine the input represents. > >>>> > >>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD > >>>> that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look > >>>> at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider. > >>>> > >>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider > >>>> would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT > >>>> SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the > >>>> dependence of the definiton on itself. > >>>> > >>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that definition, > >>>> but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders can't exist. > >>> > >>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on > >>> the actual behaviour the input represents. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> > >> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt > >> decider. > > > > Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and I > > didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the ground > > up and it actually works unlike yours. > > > > /Flibble > > When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me and > you stealing my work. That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <tieev2$1hhd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58660 |
On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500 > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500 >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 my code proves that D >>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless >>>>>>>>>> aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of this >>>>>>>>>> halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it >>>>>>>>> itself does. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has >>>>>>>> been for years) that H can decide based on what would happen if >>>>>>>> H were different. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the behavior >>>>>>> of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD never >>>>>>> aborted its simulation of this non-halting input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a loop >>>>>>> is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, thus never >>>>>>> reports. >>>>>> >>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides >>>>>> on what the behavior is of the machine the input represents. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD >>>>>> that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look >>>>>> at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider. >>>>>> >>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider >>>>>> would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT >>>>>> SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the >>>>>> dependence of the definiton on itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that definition, >>>>>> but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders can't exist. >>>>> >>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on >>>>> the actual behaviour the input represents. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt >>>> decider. >>> >>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and I >>> didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the ground >>> up and it actually works unlike yours. >>> >>> /Flibble >> >> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me and >> you stealing my work. > > That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work. > > /Flibble > This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt decider" When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work. https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) [--Flibble violates my copyright--] On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> Hi! >> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original solution >> to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging with Olcott and >> his non-solution to the halting problem.) > > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far no > one has done that. Many people did point out their own false > assumptions though. > >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls >> the halt decider as The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your failure to acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft. -- 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 | 2022-10-15 15:13 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <20221015151343.000005e9@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58665 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:38 -0500 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500 > > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500 > >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 > >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 my code proves > >>>>>>>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would never stop running > >>>>>>>>>> unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria > >>>>>>>>>> of this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this > >>>>>>>>>> criteria. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it > >>>>>>>>> itself does. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has > >>>>>>>> been for years) that H can decide based on what would happen > >>>>>>>> if H were different. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the > >>>>>>> behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD > >>>>>>> never aborted its simulation of this non-halting input. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a > >>>>>>> loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, > >>>>>>> thus never reports. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides > >>>>>> on what the behavior is of the machine the input represents. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD > >>>>>> that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look > >>>>>> at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider > >>>>>> would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT > >>>>>> SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the > >>>>>> dependence of the definiton on itself. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that > >>>>>> definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders > >>>>>> can't exist. > >>>>> > >>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide > >>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents. > >>>>> > >>>>> /Flibble > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt > >>>> decider. > >>> > >>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and I > >>> didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the > >>> ground up and it actually works unlike yours. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >> > >> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me > >> and you stealing my work. > > > > That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work. > > > > /Flibble > > > > This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt decider" > > When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work. > https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright > > Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory > > Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) > [--Flibble violates my copyright--] > > On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: > > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original > >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging > >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.) > > > > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then > > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far no > > one has done that. Many people did point out their own false > > assumptions though. > > > >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that > >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls > >> the halt decider as > > The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your failure to > acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft. No, you did not come up with the idea of using simulation to determine if an input halts. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <tiefvg$1it$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58667 |
On 10/15/2022 9:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:38 -0500 > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500 >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500 >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 my code proves >>>>>>>>>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would never stop running >>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria >>>>>>>>>>>> of this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this >>>>>>>>>>>> criteria. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it >>>>>>>>>>> itself does. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he has >>>>>>>>>> been for years) that H can decide based on what would happen >>>>>>>>>> if H were different. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the >>>>>>>>> behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD >>>>>>>>> never aborted its simulation of this non-halting input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a >>>>>>>>> loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, >>>>>>>>> thus never reports. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides >>>>>>>> on what the behavior is of the machine the input represents. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD >>>>>>>> that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look >>>>>>>> at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider >>>>>>>> would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT >>>>>>>> SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the >>>>>>>> dependence of the definiton on itself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that >>>>>>>> definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders >>>>>>>> can't exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide >>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt >>>>>> decider. >>>>> >>>>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and I >>>>> didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the >>>>> ground up and it actually works unlike yours. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>> >>>> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me >>>> and you stealing my work. >>> >>> That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt decider" >> >> When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work. >> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright >> >> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory >> >> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) >> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] >> >> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: >> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> >> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original >> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging >> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.) >> > >> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then >> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far no >> > one has done that. Many people did point out their own false >> > assumptions though. >> > >> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that >> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls >> >> the halt decider as >> >> The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your failure to >> acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft. > > No, you did not come up with the idea of using simulation to determine > if an input halts. > > /Flibble Cite your source. Every other reference to a "simulating halt decider" simply rejects it out-of-hand as infeasible. Only my reference includes the criteria for H to correctly determine the halt status of the conventional "impossible" inputs to the halting theorem. It is this notion of a "simulating halt decider" that I am the sole originator of. -- 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 | 2022-10-15 15:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <20221015153004.00007adb@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58670 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:26:56 -0500 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2022 9:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:38 -0500 > > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500 > >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500 > >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 > >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>> my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would > >>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the > >>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting criteria of this halt decider. You have > >>>>>>>>>>>> agreed that it meet this criteria. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that > >>>>>>>>>>> it itself does. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he > >>>>>>>>>> has been for years) that H can decide based on what would > >>>>>>>>>> happen if H were different. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the > >>>>>>>>> behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD > >>>>>>>>> never aborted its simulation of this non-halting input. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a > >>>>>>>>> loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, > >>>>>>>>> thus never reports. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider > >>>>>>>> decides on what the behavior is of the machine the input > >>>>>>>> represents. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the > >>>>>>>> SHD that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you > >>>>>>>> to look at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the > >>>>>>>> decider. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt > >>>>>>>> Decider would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE > >>>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That > >>>>>>>> breaks the dependence of the definiton on itself. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that > >>>>>>>> definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders > >>>>>>>> can't exist. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide > >>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> /Flibble > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt > >>>>>> decider. > >>>>> > >>>>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and > >>>>> I didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the > >>>>> ground up and it actually works unlike yours. > >>>>> > >>>>> /Flibble > >>>> > >>>> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me > >>>> and you stealing my work. > >>> > >>> That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> > >> This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt > >> decider" > >> > >> When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work. > >> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright > >> > >> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory > >> > >> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) > >> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] > >> > >> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: > >> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >> >> Hi! > >> >> > >> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original > >> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging > >> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.) > >> > > >> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then > >> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far > >> > no one has done that. Many people did point out their own false > >> > assumptions though. > >> > > >> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that > >> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls > >> >> the halt decider as > >> > >> The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your failure > >> to acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft. > > > > No, you did not come up with the idea of using simulation to > > determine if an input halts. > > > > /Flibble > > Cite your source. > > Every other reference to a "simulating halt decider" simply rejects > it out-of-hand as infeasible. Only my reference includes the criteria > for H to correctly determine the halt status of the conventional > "impossible" inputs to the halting theorem. It is this notion of a > "simulating halt decider" that I am the sole originator of. Using a universal turing machine to emulate another universal turing machine is widespread in the HP literature; "emulation" is more or less a synonym of "simulation"; the term "interpreter" is also used. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web