Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #118730 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-05-12 13:17 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-05-15 12:41 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 215 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:17 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 14:20 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:27 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 15:53 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 15:17 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 16:29 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 16:12 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:39 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 16:46 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:28 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 18:30 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:41 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:24 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 18:36 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:40 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 18:53 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:12 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:25 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:27 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:34 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:36 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:56 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:00 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:06 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:15 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:45 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:01 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:22 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:25 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 06:11 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 00:22 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-13 08:44 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 10:02 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:15 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 11:28 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-13 09:09 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:46 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:58 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:22 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:31 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 00:14 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:43 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:23 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:02 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Complete Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 00:03 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Complete Closure "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:38 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Complete Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:33 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-12 22:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-13 09:18 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-13 13:43 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-12 21:30 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:50 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:28 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 13:24 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:40 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:13 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:00 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:55 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 21:47 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-15 10:44 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 22:10 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-16 12:05 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 10:02 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 08:26 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:16 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:46 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 15:52 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:22 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:53 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:58 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:28 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:34 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-15 10:51 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 22:17 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:26 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:01 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:54 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 08:25 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-12 21:27 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:53 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:05 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:52 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:33 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 19:41 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:03 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:43 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:30 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-13 21:39 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:52 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 18:35 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-14 14:26 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:04 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:10 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 18:33 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:07 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:27 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:31 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:48 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:57 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:59 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:50 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:25 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:36 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:20 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:45 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:51 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:01 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:25 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:57 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 18:01 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:20 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:32 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 19:34 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:45 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 14:31 -0700
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:08 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:43 -0700
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 18:57 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:04 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-05-15 00:39 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 18:52 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:11 -0700
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 19:24 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-05-15 01:48 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:01 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:01 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-15 03:08 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 21:22 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 21:23 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 23:08 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 23:11 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-15 07:08 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 23:06 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 23:07 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 12:55 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-15 07:12 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-15 01:36 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 19:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 12:52 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 00:29 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-16 22:06 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 15:29 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 18:03 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 17:39 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 20:38 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 19:49 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 22:50 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 22:08 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-17 11:03 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Dishonest reviewers olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 13:45 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Dishonest reviewers Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 16:01 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Dishonest reviewers Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-18 12:24 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Dishonest reviewers "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-18 12:15 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 09:08 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 10:36 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 15:51 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-18 12:35 +0300
Mike's big mistake about DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 21:39 -0500
Re: Mike's big mistake about DD simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-16 22:03 +0200
Re: Mike's big mistake about DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 16:10 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-16 12:26 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 09:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-17 11:55 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-17 15:27 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 11:09 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 15:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 15:05 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 16:10 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 15:18 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 16:34 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 15:16 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 16:31 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 16:00 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 19:35 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-17 23:56 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 19:05 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-18 12:26 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-18 07:15 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-18 07:14 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 19:00 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-18 12:22 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-18 07:20 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:15 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-14 14:32 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:11 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 12:47 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 08:54 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:22 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:44 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:50 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 15:57 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:23 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 18:00 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:37 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:36 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 22:32 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:10 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 23:17 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:25 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:34 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:42 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 13:19 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:48 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:15 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:27 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:37 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 12:41 +0200
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 14:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <87h61mang3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #119098 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully
>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)
>>>
>>> *NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC*
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> 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
>>>
>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>>
>
> If that was actually true then you could provide an
> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.
>
> I keep challenging you to provide this alternative
> meaning and you dodge because you know that you are
> lying about there being any alternative meaning
> FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE.
No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the
words (which appear to be incomplete).
The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you didn't
notice. Here's the full quotation from a previous article:
>> <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>
**If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you claim,
**then** H can correctly report the halting status of D. (That's a
paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the full meaning; the full
**quotation is above.)
To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in
the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting
status of D.
I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that. The problem is
that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible.
If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its four
vertices would be 90 degrees. That doesn't actually mean that
there exists an equilateral triangle with four 90-degree vertices,
and in fact no such triangle exists. Similarly, *if* a general
halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things we could say
about it -- but no general halt decider can exist.
I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here. I invite any
actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to criticize
what I've written.
PO will likely use this to claim that I agree with his remarkable
claims. He will be wrong.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 17:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <100348f$2mtsb$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119109 |
On 5/14/2025 4:31 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes: >> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully >>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do) >>>> >>>> *NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC* >>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means: >>> >> >> If that was actually true then you could provide an >> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above. >> >> I keep challenging you to provide this alternative >> meaning and you dodge because you know that you are >> lying about there being any alternative meaning >> FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE. > > No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the > words (which appear to be incomplete). > The above words are the premise that derives a conclusion. If I give people here more than two sentences they get totally confused. <snip> > > To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in > the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting > status of D. > Yes, exactly. > I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that. The problem is > that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible. > HHH does correctly simulate DDD until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted. Since HHH does do this it is proven to be possible. <snip> You are my only honest reviewer. Everyone else dishonestly ignores what I say in the presumption that I must be incorrect. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 16:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <878qmyahdf.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #119121 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> HHH does correctly simulate DDD until
> HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD
> would never stop running unless aborted.
[...]
And my understanding is that it is mathematically impossible for HHH
to do what you claim it does, and that that fact is consistent with
Sipser's supposed agreement. Sipser "agreed" with somthing similar
to the 4-sided triangle example I recently posted. You snipped
that example, which is unusual for you, your posts typically include
hundreds of lines of quoted text from previous posts.
And it's still entirely possible that I've missed something.
I'm waiting for someone whose judgement I trust to comment.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 18:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1003aks$2ojhd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119133 |
On 5/14/2025 6:43 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
> [...]
>> HHH does correctly simulate DDD until
>> HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD
>> would never stop running unless aborted.
> [...]
>
> And my understanding is that it is mathematically impossible for HHH
> to do what you claim it does,
That is ridiculous as you already acknowledged.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
It is dead obvious to any expert in C to correctly
determine that DDD cannot possibly stop running
when HHH is a pure simulator.
HHH merely needs to see this exact same DEAD OBVIOUS thing.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-15 13:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1004ho4$331gh$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119136 |
Op 15.mei.2025 om 01:57 schreef olcott:
> On 5/14/2025 6:43 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> HHH does correctly simulate DDD until
>>> HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD
>>> would never stop running unless aborted.
>> [...]
>>
>> And my understanding is that it is mathematically impossible for HHH
>> to do what you claim it does,
>
> That is ridiculous as you already acknowledged.
>
> void DDD()
> {
> HHH(DDD);
> return;
> }
>
> It is dead obvious to any expert in C to correctly
> determine that DDD cannot possibly stop running
> when HHH is a pure simulator.
>
> HHH merely needs to see this exact same DEAD OBVIOUS thing.
>
>
Claiming and shouting is not proving. It is dead obvious that HHH fails
to reach the reachable end of the program, because HHH fails to see the
most important part of its input, the part that aborts. That the
programmer made HHH blind for that part of the input, does not mean that
it is not present.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-15 00:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <87ldqylq3q.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #119109 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes: >> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully >>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do) >>>> >>>> *NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC* >>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means: >>> >> >> If that was actually true then you could provide an >> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above. >> >> I keep challenging you to provide this alternative >> meaning and you dodge because you know that you are >> lying about there being any alternative meaning >> FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE. > > No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the > words (which appear to be incomplete). > > The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you didn't > notice. Here's the full quotation from a previous article: > >>> <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> > > **If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you claim, > **then** H can correctly report the halting status of D. (That's a > paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the full meaning; the full > **quotation is above.) > > To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in > the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting > status of D. > > I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that. The problem is > that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible. > > If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its four > vertices would be 90 degrees. That doesn't actually mean that > there exists an equilateral triangle with four 90-degree vertices, > and in fact no such triangle exists. Similarly, *if* a general > halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things we could say > about it -- but no general halt decider can exist. It's certainly true that it can be taken to be a purely hypothetical remark, but I suspect PO played a more subtle trick on the professor. Nothing in the quote that PO presented states that D is special in any particular way. If D is simply "its input" then the statement is simply true of some inputs to H: those that can be determined to be non-halting can be reported as such. There will be many such inputs if the simulator is clever at detecting certain patterns. But D and H are the names that Sipser uses in his book in his HP proof. Was it made clear that D is not just the name of the input (as the first few words of the quote might suggest) but is in fact one very specific input constructed from H itself? I don't know, and I doubt we ever will. If that was made clear, then PO should be saying that Sipser agreed to more than just the quoted words and in that case I'd wager his agreement was based on the hypothetical nature of the quote. > I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here. I invite any > actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to criticize > what I've written. I am no expert, though I did teach this material in a CS degree course for many years. Richard (H) has reminded us about avoiding straw man arguments and to instead address the strongest, clearest version of the point of view we reject. PO is playing with this idea by constructing straw men to be agreed with!. He spent years honing a sentence to express his position until is was vague enough that someone important would agree with it. PO should, however, have asked Sipser to agree with an honest and clear statement of his (incorrect) views: (a) That false (non-halting) is the correct result for some inputs that represent halting computations. (b) This is because, in the special case of a putative halt decider that uses simulation, it is correct to report on what /would/ happen were the simulation /not/ aborted. (c) In the specific case where D is constructed from a simulating H in the manner typically found in Halting Theorem proofs, H would then be able to correctly report a result because H can detect that D halts only because H has to stop simulating to report at all. No one would agree to any of this, so PO must hide these points in some sort of waffle or other. As I say, it took years to move from being relatively clear to being vague enough to trick the professor. All of (a), (b) and (c) can be found, in varying degrees of clarity, in PO's posts of the last 20 years. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 18:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1003abn$2ojhd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119132 |
On 5/14/2025 6:39 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully >>>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do) >>>>> >>>>> *NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC* >>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means: >>>> >>> >>> If that was actually true then you could provide an >>> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above. >>> >>> I keep challenging you to provide this alternative >>> meaning and you dodge because you know that you are >>> lying about there being any alternative meaning >>> FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE. >> >> No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the >> words (which appear to be incomplete). >> >> The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you didn't >> notice. Here's the full quotation from a previous article: >> >>>> <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> >> >> **If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you claim, >> **then** H can correctly report the halting status of D. (That's a >> paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the full meaning; the full >> **quotation is above.) >> >> To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in >> the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting >> status of D. >> >> I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that. The problem is >> that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible. >> >> If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its four >> vertices would be 90 degrees. That doesn't actually mean that >> there exists an equilateral triangle with four 90-degree vertices, >> and in fact no such triangle exists. Similarly, *if* a general >> halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things we could say >> about it -- but no general halt decider can exist. > > It's certainly true that it can be taken to be a purely hypothetical > remark, but I suspect PO played a more subtle trick on the professor. > Nothing in the quote that PO presented states that D is special in any > particular way. If D is simply "its input" then the statement is simply > true of some inputs to H: those that can be determined to be non-halting > can be reported as such. There will be many such inputs if the > simulator is clever at detecting certain patterns. > > But D and H are the names that Sipser uses in his book in his HP proof. > Was it made clear that D is not just the name of the input (as the first > few words of the quote might suggest) but is in fact one very specific > input constructed from H itself? I don't know, and I doubt we ever > will. If that was made clear, then PO should be saying that Sipser > agreed to more than just the quoted words and in that case I'd wager his > agreement was based on the hypothetical nature of the quote. > >> I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here. I invite any >> actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to criticize >> what I've written. > > I am no expert, though I did teach this material in a CS degree course > for many years. > > Richard (H) has reminded us about avoiding straw man arguments and to > instead address the strongest, clearest version of the point of view we > reject. PO is playing with this idea by constructing straw men to be > agreed with!. He spent years honing a sentence to express his position > until is was vague enough that someone important would agree with it. > > PO should, however, have asked Sipser to agree with an honest and clear > statement of his (incorrect) views: > > (a) That false (non-halting) is the correct result for some inputs that > represent halting computations. > That is a deliberate misinterpretation of the exact meaning of the quoted words. > (b) This is because, in the special case of a putative halt decider that > uses simulation, it is correct to report on what /would/ happen were the > simulation /not/ aborted. > That is what the words he agreed to entail. > (c) In the specific case where D is constructed from a simulating H in > the manner typically found in Halting Theorem proofs, H would then be > able to correctly report a result because H can detect that D halts only > because H has to stop simulating to report at all. > Yes this is correct. That is what the words he agreed to entail. > No one would agree to any of this, Yet professor Sipser did agree with words that do entail that. > so PO must hide these points in some > sort of waffle or other. As I say, it took years to move from being > relatively clear to being vague enough to trick the professor. All of The quoted words only have one single correct meaning. > (a), (b) and (c) can be found, in varying degrees of clarity, in PO's > posts of the last 20 years. > The quoted words only have one single correct meaning. I spent two years coming up with those words before contacting Professor Sipser. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 17:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <874ixmag26.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #119132 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully
>>>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)
>>>>>
>>>>> *NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC*
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that was actually true then you could provide an
>>> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.
>>>
>>> I keep challenging you to provide this alternative
>>> meaning and you dodge because you know that you are
>>> lying about there being any alternative meaning
>>> FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE.
>>
>> No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the
>> words (which appear to be incomplete).
>>
>> The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you didn't
>> notice. Here's the full quotation from a previous article:
>>
>>>> <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>
>>
>> **If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you claim,
>> **then** H can correctly report the halting status of D. (That's a
>> paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the full meaning; the full
>> **quotation is above.)
>>
>> To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in
>> the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting
>> status of D.
>>
>> I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that. The problem is
>> that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible.
>>
>> If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its four
>> vertices would be 90 degrees. That doesn't actually mean that
>> there exists an equilateral triangle with four 90-degree vertices,
>> and in fact no such triangle exists. Similarly, *if* a general
>> halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things we could say
>> about it -- but no general halt decider can exist.
>
> It's certainly true that it can be taken to be a purely hypothetical
> remark, but I suspect PO played a more subtle trick on the professor.
> Nothing in the quote that PO presented states that D is special in any
> particular way. If D is simply "its input" then the statement is simply
> true of some inputs to H: those that can be determined to be non-halting
> can be reported as such. There will be many such inputs if the
> simulator is clever at detecting certain patterns.
>
> But D and H are the names that Sipser uses in his book in his HP proof.
> Was it made clear that D is not just the name of the input (as the first
> few words of the quote might suggest) but is in fact one very specific
> input constructed from H itself? I don't know, and I doubt we ever
> will. If that was made clear, then PO should be saying that Sipser
> agreed to more than just the quoted words and in that case I'd wager his
> agreement was based on the hypothetical nature of the quote.
>
>> I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here. I invite any
>> actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to criticize
>> what I've written.
>
> I am no expert, though I did teach this material in a CS degree course
> for many years.
>
> Richard (H) has reminded us about avoiding straw man arguments and to
> instead address the strongest, clearest version of the point of view we
> reject. PO is playing with this idea by constructing straw men to be
> agreed with!. He spent years honing a sentence to express his position
> until is was vague enough that someone important would agree with it.
>
> PO should, however, have asked Sipser to agree with an honest and clear
> statement of his (incorrect) views:
>
> (a) That false (non-halting) is the correct result for some inputs that
> represent halting computations.
>
> (b) This is because, in the special case of a putative halt decider that
> uses simulation, it is correct to report on what /would/ happen were the
> simulation /not/ aborted.
>
> (c) In the specific case where D is constructed from a simulating H in
> the manner typically found in Halting Theorem proofs, H would then be
> able to correctly report a result because H can detect that D halts only
> because H has to stop simulating to report at all.
>
> No one would agree to any of this, so PO must hide these points in some
> sort of waffle or other. As I say, it took years to move from being
> relatively clear to being vague enough to trick the professor. All of
> (a), (b) and (c) can be found, in varying degrees of clarity, in PO's
> posts of the last 20 years.
Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was
to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to.
PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or
ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually
a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt
detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it
does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and
bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't
even been quoting correctly).
I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light.
I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it.
I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to
analyze the rest of PO's claims.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 19:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1003c7n$2ort6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119140 |
On 5/14/2025 7:11 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was
> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to.
Yes finally an actual honest reviewer that does not
use inflammatory rhetoric to simply dodge rather than
address the actual point.
> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or
> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually
> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt
> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it
> does not support PO's wider claims.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
Simple software engineering proves that when HHH(DDD)
evaluates its input
*according the exact meaning of the words*
of the above criteria then HHH is correct to reject DDD.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
It is very easy for HHH to see the same repeating
state that all competent C programmers can see
under the assumption that HHH is a pure simulator.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-15 01:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <87cyca3dig.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #119140 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was > to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. > PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or > ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually > a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt > detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it > does not support PO's wider claims. I thought I addressed that directly. Disconnected from the original context, it can been seen as either a rather obvious true statement or as a true hypothetical. The trouble is, there is no way to consider it *in isolation* because the meaning of the words depends on context. An educated reader will read a "simulating halt decider" either as a nonexistent entity or as a "best attempt" decider of some class of cases. Some particular readers will imbue the names H and D with a very specific technical meaning. And any attempt to re-word it to arrive at something every educated reader will accept as correct will render it irrelevant to PO who only cares about one meaning he has given it. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 20:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1003ee7$2p2so$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119151 |
On 5/14/2025 7:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > >> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was >> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. >> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or >> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually >> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt >> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it >> does not support PO's wider claims. > > I thought I addressed that directly. Disconnected from the original > context, it can been seen as either a rather obvious true statement or > as a true hypothetical. The trouble is, there is no way to consider it > *in isolation* because the meaning of the words depends on context. They do not depend on the context. > An > educated reader will read a "simulating halt decider" either as a > nonexistent entity or as a "best attempt" decider of some class of > cases. Until they bother to read its precise specification. > Some particular readers will imbue the names H and D with a very > specific technical meaning. And any attempt to re-word it to arrive at > something every educated reader will accept as correct will render it > irrelevant to PO who only cares about one meaning he has given it. > Those words only have one meaning. The 2.5 years that people have been trying to get away with dishonest "interpretations" end today. According to the exact meaning of the words of the spec HHH does correctly reject the HP counter-example input as non-halting. The leading author of theory of computation textbooks has agreed with these exact words. The above are facts. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-15 13:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1004hhk$331gh$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119152 |
Op 15.mei.2025 om 03:01 schreef olcott: > On 5/14/2025 7:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was >>> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. >>> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or >>> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually >>> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt >>> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it >>> does not support PO's wider claims. >> >> I thought I addressed that directly. Disconnected from the original >> context, it can been seen as either a rather obvious true statement or >> as a true hypothetical. The trouble is, there is no way to consider it >> *in isolation* because the meaning of the words depends on context. > > They do not depend on the context. > >> An >> educated reader will read a "simulating halt decider" either as a >> nonexistent entity or as a "best attempt" decider of some class of >> cases. > > Until they bother to read its precise specification. > >> Some particular readers will imbue the names H and D with a very >> specific technical meaning. And any attempt to re-word it to arrive at >> something every educated reader will accept as correct will render it >> irrelevant to PO who only cares about one meaning he has given it. >> > > Those words only have one meaning. > The 2.5 years that people have been trying to get > away with dishonest "interpretations" end today. > > According to the exact meaning of the words of the > spec HHH does correctly reject the HP counter-example > input as non-halting. Only with the 'exact meaning' using definitions that nobody agrees with. Such definitions of 'correct' and 'simulation' and decider' exist only in olcott's dreams. In reality they have different meaning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-15 03:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1003iac$2toq3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119140 |
On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote: > Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully >>>>>>> simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do) >>>>>> >>>>>> *NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC* >>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means: >>>>> >>>> >>>> If that was actually true then you could provide an >>>> alternative meaning for the exact words stated above. >>>> >>>> I keep challenging you to provide this alternative >>>> meaning and you dodge because you know that you are >>>> lying about there being any alternative meaning >>>> FOR THE EXACT WORDS LISTED ABOVE. >>> >>> No alternative meaning is needed, just a correct interpretation of the >>> words (which appear to be incomplete). >>> >>> The quoted sentence is cut off, something that I suspect you didn't >>> notice. Here's the full quotation from a previous article: >>> >>>>> <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> >>> >>> **If** H correctly simulates its input in the manner you claim, >>> **then** H can correctly report the halting status of D. (That's a >>> paraphrase that probably doesn't capture the full meaning; the full >>> **quotation is above.) >>> >>> To put it another way, If H correctly simulated its input in >>> the manner you claim, then H could correctly report the halting >>> status of D. >>> >>> I'm not surprised that Sipser would agree to that. The problem is >>> that it's a conditional statement whose premise is impossible. >>> >>> If an equilateral triangle had four sides, then each of its four >>> vertices would be 90 degrees. That doesn't actually mean that >>> there exists an equilateral triangle with four 90-degree vertices, >>> and in fact no such triangle exists. Similarly, *if* a general >>> halt decider existed, then there are a lot of things we could say >>> about it -- but no general halt decider can exist. >> >> It's certainly true that it can be taken to be a purely hypothetical >> remark, but I suspect PO played a more subtle trick on the professor. >> Nothing in the quote that PO presented states that D is special in any >> particular way. If D is simply "its input" then the statement is simply >> true of some inputs to H: those that can be determined to be non-halting >> can be reported as such. There will be many such inputs if the >> simulator is clever at detecting certain patterns. >> >> But D and H are the names that Sipser uses in his book in his HP proof. >> Was it made clear that D is not just the name of the input (as the first >> few words of the quote might suggest) but is in fact one very specific >> input constructed from H itself? I don't know, and I doubt we ever >> will. If that was made clear, then PO should be saying that Sipser >> agreed to more than just the quoted words and in that case I'd wager his >> agreement was based on the hypothetical nature of the quote. >> >>> I'm not quite 100% confident in my reasoning here. I invite any >>> actual experts in computational theory (not you, PO) to criticize >>> what I've written. >> >> I am no expert, though I did teach this material in a CS degree course >> for many years. >> >> Richard (H) has reminded us about avoiding straw man arguments and to >> instead address the strongest, clearest version of the point of view we >> reject. PO is playing with this idea by constructing straw men to be >> agreed with!. He spent years honing a sentence to express his position >> until is was vague enough that someone important would agree with it. >> >> PO should, however, have asked Sipser to agree with an honest and clear >> statement of his (incorrect) views: >> >> (a) That false (non-halting) is the correct result for some inputs that >> represent halting computations. >> >> (b) This is because, in the special case of a putative halt decider that >> uses simulation, it is correct to report on what /would/ happen were the >> simulation /not/ aborted. >> >> (c) In the specific case where D is constructed from a simulating H in >> the manner typically found in Halting Theorem proofs, H would then be >> able to correctly report a result because H can detect that D halts only >> because H has to stop simulating to report at all. >> >> No one would agree to any of this, so PO must hide these points in some >> sort of waffle or other. As I say, it took years to move from being >> relatively clear to being vague enough to trick the professor. All of >> (a), (b) and (c) can be found, in varying degrees of clarity, in PO's >> posts of the last 20 years. > > Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was > to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. > PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or > ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually > a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt > detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it > does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and > bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't > even been quoting correctly). > > I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light. > I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it. > I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to > analyze the rest of PO's claims. > I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to. IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words. But in the end, PO is making a blatant appeal to authority which should just be rejected. If PO believes his interpretation is a correct statement about simulating halt deciders he doesn't need to involve Sipser to try to settle arguments - he can just make his own argument. Lately he posted, admitting he was appealing to authority, and claimed that was "a valid inductive technique" !!! Yes, it's unpleasant that PO drags Sipser's name into things, and by extension, potentially his reputation, but I don't see how to stop that. I have tried explaining to PO what Sipser's mindset would have been, and how he would naturally NOT have taken into account PO's belief that "changing the decider code means we have to change the input string to match", but PO's having none of it! It's like he thinks Sipser /said the words/, and words have an absolute meaning [which PO knows even if nobody else agrees] therefore Sipser agreed with what PO meant QED. That suggests some basic problem with "Theory of Mind" and dealing with other peoples mental states. ToM develops in children around the ages 3-5, so I read. Maybe the recent suggestion of disengaging from PO when he does this - or at least disengaging from that post could work. Perhaps a single severely trimmed "community response" would be good, along the lines === Post ignored due to blatant misrepresentation of Sipser's views === Or something like... (But you're unlikely to achieve such a group concensus, and if you did some new posters would soon come along...) Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 21:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1003j4b$2tnhr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119162 |
On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>> >> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was >> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. >> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or >> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually >> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt >> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it >> does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and >> bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't >> even been quoting correctly). >> >> I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light. >> I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it. >> I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to >> analyze the rest of PO's claims. >> > > I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to. > IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words. > *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING* (I just noticed that today) You were perfectly correct until you made the statement that On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough Every HHH is identical except that the outermost simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole simulation before the next inner one. This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait. -- Copyright 2025 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 21:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1003j7g$2tnhr$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119165 |
On 5/14/2025 9:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>> >>> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was >>> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. >>> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or >>> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually >>> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt >>> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it >>> does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and >>> bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't >>> even been quoting correctly). >>> >>> I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light. >>> I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it. >>> I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to >>> analyze the rest of PO's claims. >>> >> >> I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to. >> IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words. >> > > *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING* > (I just noticed that today) > > You were perfectly correct until you made the > statement that > > On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input > > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough > > Every HHH is identical except that the outermost > simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole > simulation before the next inner one. > > This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts > then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait. > I have already gone over this 150 times in the last three years. -- Copyright 2025 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 | 2025-05-14 23:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <74364426e12e8ed93481207ffe6c37514df11110@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #119166 |
On 5/14/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/14/2025 9:22 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>> >>>> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was >>>> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. >>>> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or >>>> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually >>>> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt >>>> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it >>>> does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and >>>> bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't >>>> even been quoting correctly). >>>> >>>> I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light. >>>> I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it. >>>> I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to >>>> analyze the rest of PO's claims. >>>> >>> >>> I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to. >>> IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words. >>> >> >> *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING* >> (I just noticed that today) >> >> You were perfectly correct until you made the >> statement that >> >> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input >> > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough >> >> Every HHH is identical except that the outermost >> simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole >> simulation before the next inner one. >> >> This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts >> then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait. >> > > I have already gone over this 150 times in the last > three years. > And it has been refuted nearly as many times, and the refutations IGNORED, showing you have run out of ways to hide your error. You just don't understand what the "behavior" of the input means, because you just belive your own lies, rather than the actual definative definitions, because you can't stand rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 23:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1003pgo$2ul9e$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119171 |
On 5/14/2025 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/14/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/14/2025 9:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>> >>>>> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was >>>>> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. >>>>> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or >>>>> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually >>>>> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt >>>>> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it >>>>> does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and >>>>> bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't >>>>> even been quoting correctly). >>>>> >>>>> I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light. >>>>> I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it. >>>>> I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to >>>>> analyze the rest of PO's claims. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed >>>> to. IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the >>>> words. >>>> >>> >>> *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING* >>> (I just noticed that today) >>> >>> You were perfectly correct until you made the >>> statement that >>> >>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input >>> > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough >>> >>> Every HHH is identical except that the outermost >>> simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole >>> simulation before the next inner one. >>> >>> This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts >>> then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait. >>> >> >> I have already gone over this 150 times in the last >> three years. >> > > And it has been refuted nearly as many times, and the refutations > IGNORED, showing you have run out of ways to hide your error. > It has never been refuted because it is inherently true. > You just don't understand what the "behavior" of the input means, The exact sequence of steps dumbo. > because you just belive your own lies, rather than the actual definative > definitions, because you can't stand rules. It is simple software engineering that is just beyond you skill level. -- Copyright 2025 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 | 2025-05-15 07:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <6325283bd7bfc0ac931ed1b5dd599276f64b002f@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #119177 |
On 5/15/25 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/25 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>>
>>>>>> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was
>>>>>> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or
>>>>>> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually
>>>>>> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt
>>>>>> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it
>>>>>> does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and
>>>>>> bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't
>>>>>> even been quoting correctly).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light.
>>>>>> I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it.
>>>>>> I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to
>>>>>> analyze the rest of PO's claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed
>>>>> to. IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the
>>>>> words.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING*
>>>> (I just noticed that today)
>>>>
>>>> You were perfectly correct until you made the
>>>> statement that
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input
>>>> > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough
>>>>
>>>> Every HHH is identical except that the outermost
>>>> simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole
>>>> simulation before the next inner one.
>>>>
>>>> This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts
>>>> then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have already gone over this 150 times in the last
>>> three years.
>>>
>>
>> And it has been refuted nearly as many times, and the refutations
>> IGNORED, showing you have run out of ways to hide your error.
>>
>
> It has never been refuted because it is inherently true.
Sure it has, yoiu are just too stupid to understand.
How many times have I given you the reason, and why haven't you shown
the error in my argument (other than just saying I am wrong).
Note, I have broken done my proof into smaller well defined steps, you
just repeat your ill-defined words, because you can't go finer without
making your lies obvious.
>
>> You just don't understand what the "behavior" of the input means,
>
> The exact sequence of steps dumbo.
Right, of the FULL interpretation of its code, which doesn't mean the
partial emulation done by the particual HHH, but the FULL emulation of
the EXACT CODE present with that HHH, which HALTS.
>
>> because you just belive your own lies, rather than the actual
>> definative definitions, because you can't stand rules.
>
> It is simple software engineering that is just beyond you skill level.
>
Nope, you are just using your lies that a partial trace shows
information about code it never saw.
Tell me, does this program halts:
int foo() {
while( bar()) continue;
return 0;
}
That is the full input describing foo, just as your DDD is the full
input describing DDD.
If your logic claims it can deduce what DDD() does, it should be able to
deduce what foo() does
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 23:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <91a0dab8ef3c2c1ddcc23f8818b9ba75850f6c6c@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #119165 |
On 5/14/25 10:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>> >>> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was >>> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to. >>> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or >>> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually >>> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt >>> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it >>> does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and >>> bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't >>> even been quoting correctly). >>> >>> I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light. >>> I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it. >>> I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to >>> analyze the rest of PO's claims. >>> >> >> I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to. >> IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words. >> > > *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING* > (I just noticed that today) > > You were perfectly correct until you made the > statement that > > On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input > > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough > > Every HHH is identical except that the outermost > simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole > simulation before the next inner one. > > This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts > then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait. > > So "Identical except ..." means Identical in your world? Since aborted emulations do not show what a correct emulation does, and that is what BEHAVIOR is based on. So yes, either the outer HHH aborts, and thus ALL HHH abort, and DDD is halting, and HHH is worng. If the outer HHH doesn't abort, it is DIFFERENT than above, and all the HHH don't abort, and that DIFFERENT DDD will never halt, as will HHH never halt. DIFFERENT inputs, DIFFERENT results. Your problem is you just believe your own lies that "same except ..." means are the same, and not must be different. Since all the HHH *ARE* the same, they behave the same, it is just the partial emulation done by HHH doesn't show it what it needs. Yes, HHH can't wait, but must to get the right answer, and thus is wrong. The need to lie to be right isn't an excuse to lie, but just shows the need to be a pathological liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 23:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH |
| Message-ID | <1003pal$2ul9e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119170 |
On 5/14/2025 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/25 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 9:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 15/05/2025 01:11, Keith Thompson wrote:>>
>>>> Fair enough, but what I was trying to do in this instance was
>>>> to focus on the single statement that PO says Sipser agreed to.
>>>> PO complains, correctly or not, that nobody understands or
>>>> ackowledges the statement. I suggest that perhaps it's actually
>>>> a true statement *in isolation* (very roughly if a working halt
>>>> detector exists then it works as a halt detector), even though it
>>>> does not support PO's wider claims. I've seen a lot of time and
>>>> bandwidth expended on this one statement (that PO recently hasn't
>>>> even been quoting correctly).
>>>>
>>>> I do not expect to make any progress in helping PO to see the light.
>>>> I'm just curious about this one statement and the reaction to it.
>>>> I am neither sufficiently qualified nor sufficiently motivated to
>>>> analyze the rest of PO's claims.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I made a post at around 00:36 saying what I suspect Sipser agreed to.
>>> IOW how Sipser expected readers (PO included) to interpret the words.
>>>
>>
>> *THOSE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE CORRECT MEANING*
>> (I just noticed that today)
>>
>> You were perfectly correct until you made the
>> statement that
>>
>> On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> > In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input
>> > (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough
>>
>> Every HHH is identical except that the outermost
>> simulation reaches its abort criteria one whole
>> simulation before the next inner one.
>>
>> This means that unless the outermost HHH aborts
>> then none of them do. HHH can not simply wait.
>>
>>
>
> So "Identical except ..." means Identical in your world?
>
If you knew about cooperative multi-tasking I could
explain it to you.
> Since aborted emulations do not show what a correct emulation does, and
> that is what BEHAVIOR is based on.
>
You are trying to get away with twisting the exact
meaning of these words. It took me two years to
write those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
HHH correctly simulates itself simulating DDD
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web