Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #58398 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-10-12 10:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-10-30 11:43 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 244 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 10:08 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-12 17:54 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-12 17:46 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 12:04 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 16:07 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 23:58 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 06:51 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 09:43 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 18:33 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 17:47 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 19:04 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 20:52 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [Ben agrees] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 20:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:04 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-18 02:36 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 19:56 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-18 03:01 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:10 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-18 03:24 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:27 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 21:33 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 20:54 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 20:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 21:26 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:35 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 21:46 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 20:57 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:03 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 21:14 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:23 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-10-17 21:34 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:41 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 21:48 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:56 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 22:09 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 22:27 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 22:05 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 21:19 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 22:32 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-10-17 21:36 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-10-18 05:55 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 09:58 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-10-17 04:59 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 09:20 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 09:31 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 11:48 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 18:24 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 12:38 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 18:52 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 13:04 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 19:07 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 13:25 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 19:30 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 14:17 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 20:26 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 14:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-12 20:50 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 15:07 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 12:32 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 15:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 15:23 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 17:39 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 17:17 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 11:46 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 17:47 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:26 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:13 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:06 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 18:22 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 20:59 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 20:13 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 21:56 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 20:19 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 03:44 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo !!! olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 21:07 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo !!! Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 22:21 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 22:01 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 21:11 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 22:27 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 21:37 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 23:00 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 22:28 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 23:51 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 23:00 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 07:56 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:13 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 13:34 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 23:01 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 08:05 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:14 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-14 15:32 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo^2 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 13:01 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:01 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 18:42 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 17:59 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 20:04 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:00 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 21:52 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 21:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:13 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 21:33 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:51 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 18:37 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 17:46 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 16:49 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 19:27 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 19:35 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 20:45 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 21:59 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 21:07 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (correct a typo) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:17 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 20:42 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 18:23 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:31 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 03:50 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 23:15 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 22:51 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 07:50 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 09:35 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 17:54 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 11:28 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:12 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:11 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 12:29 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 22:29 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-13 11:28 -0600
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:40 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 18:43 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:52 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:09 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:34 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 13:45 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:51 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:55 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 20:58 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 14:03 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-13 21:06 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:14 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-13 23:06 -0600
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 00:28 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 08:09 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:20 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 16:38 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 10:37 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 17:45 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 11:00 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 18:07 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 11:36 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 18:53 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 18:59 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 12:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 19:12 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 12:24 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 19:29 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 12:57 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 14:17 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 13:29 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 13:26 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 14:40 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 14:06 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 15:52 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:09 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:28 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:49 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 17:00 -0400
Re: Trickery Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 01:21 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:29 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:39 -0400
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 09:40 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:17 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 14:20 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 14:31 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:13 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:26 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:39 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:42 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 06:51 -0700
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:25 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:36 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 15:40 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:56 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:02 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 10:24 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 16:27 +0100
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 07:38 -0700
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:46 -0500
Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:52 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 19:53 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:56 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:17 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-10-14 13:07 +0300
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 09:08 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:11 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 06:54 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-17 16:23 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 10:40 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 18:36 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 19:41 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-17 19:53 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [--Ben agrees--] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 19:54 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-19 16:59 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider (Ben's support) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-20 22:17 -0500
Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 22:41 -0500
Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 15:03 -0500
Re: Ben agrees that Sipser_H is correct according to its halt status criteria [Paul N Lies] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 14:20 -0500
Paul N is a liar or does not bother to pay attention olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 17:10 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 18:51 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:58 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 19:09 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 21:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> - 2022-10-12 20:07 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-12 22:36 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Philip White <philipwhite363@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 09:18 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 02:50 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 19:09 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:19 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-12 22:05 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2022-10-13 10:47 +0300
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 09:33 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 10:42 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-13 12:48 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:37 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 19:40 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 13:49 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-13 19:52 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 12:52 -0700
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 15:12 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-13 21:07 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:19 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-13 21:28 +0200
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 15:11 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-13 20:24 +0100
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-13 14:32 -0500
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-13 19:19 -0400
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [-Update-] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-30 11:43 -0500
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 10:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider |
| Message-ID | <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> |
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks
correct:
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
paper.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
presented to him.
*The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 17:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ti6o0g$1fj1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58398 |
Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks
> correct:
>
> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>
> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
> paper.
>
> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>
> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
> presented to him.
>
> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>
>
And what does he say about:
If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 17:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87leplkn16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #58399 |
"Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: > Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct: >> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this >> paper. >> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >> presented to him. >> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >> > > And what does he say about: Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! > If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation > of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be > correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P) returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting computation. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti6s30$1hpc2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58400 |
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>
>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct:
>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
>>> paper.
>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>> presented to him.
>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>
>>
>> And what does he say about:
>
> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>
>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>
> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H
> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P)
> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
> computation.
>
Professor Sipser essentially validates the same notion of a simulating
halt decider that I have had all along:
When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that its
correct simulation of its input D would never stop running unless
aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its simulation of D and
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
<quoted email>
Professor Sipser:
Here is what I would like to say:
Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks
correct:
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
paper.
*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
presented to him.
</quoted email>
<quoted reply>
Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
</quoted reply>
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 16:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01c49619-861d-495f-84fe-2fb7ed575a8cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58400 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:46:32 AM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> writes: > > > Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: > >> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct: > >> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation > >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be > >> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D > >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? > >> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this > >> paper. > >> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* > >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof > >> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper > >> presented to him. > >> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* > >> > > > > And what does he say about: > Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! > > If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation > > of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be > > correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D > > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? > You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get > something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H > "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P) > returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting > computation. > > -- > Ben. Professor Sipser agrees that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H is the correct behavior to analyze when H derives its halt status for D. When H correctly determines that its simulation of D would never stop running unless aborted H is correct to abort its simulation of D and reject this input.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-16 23:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tiindo$3cg9h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58400 |
On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: > >> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct: >>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this >>> paper. >>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>> presented to him. >>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>> >> >> And what does he say about: > > Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! > >> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? > > You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get > something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H > "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P) > returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting > computation. > Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 06:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ssa3L.440909$SAT4.243077@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #58856 |
On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >> >>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>> looks correct: >>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this >>>> paper. >>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>> presented to him. >>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>>> >>> >>> And what does he say about: >> >> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >> >>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >> >> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get >> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P) >> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >> computation. >> > > Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? > This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? > Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. What that sentence does NOT mean, if the input was used to use a different decider that fails to be a decider but just correctly simulats its input, like you are trying to make it mean. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 09:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tijpmt$gq2$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58862 |
On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>> >>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>> looks correct: >>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in >>>>> this >>>>> paper. >>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>>> presented to him. >>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>>>> >>>> >>>> And what does he say about: >>> >>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>> >>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>> >>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get >>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P) >>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>> computation. >>> >> >> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >> > > Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final > state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that > H(D) Does abort and return and answer. *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. *A paraphrase of a portion of the above paragraph* Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted? Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly meeting the Sipser approved criteria shown above. You don't have enough knowledge of the x86 language to understand the proof on page 3. *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 18:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nLk3L.783157$BKL8.600763@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #58879 |
On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>> >>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in >>>>>> this >>>>>> paper. >>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And what does he say about: >>>> >>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>> >>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>> >>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get >>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>> H(P,P) >>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>> computation. >>>> >>> >>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>> >> >> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final >> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that >> H(D) Does abort and return and answer. > > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H > correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running > unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report > that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. Since the DEFINITION of "Correct Simulation" is a simulation that matches the direct running to the machine, and the fact that D(D) will return 1 since you have shown the H(D,D) return 0, the CORRECT simulation of the input will halt, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for H to CORRRECT prove that it doesn't Since this has been shown to you before, it just shows that you are a liar. > > *A paraphrase of a portion of the above paragraph* > Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted? > > Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly meeting the > Sipser approved criteria shown above. Nope, all you have "proven" is that D(D) calls H(D,D) and H THINK that this means it will be non-halting, when actually it proves the opposite. It shows that H(D,D) WILL return 0, and thus D(D) WILL return 1 Note, the "Rule" you quote is totally unsupported, you have FAILED to ever provide evidence for it, and it has been proven to be incorrret > > You don't have enough knowledge of the x86 language to understand the > proof on page 3. > > *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof > > You are just prpoving you don't know what yop are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 17:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tikm1i$1mui$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58924 |
On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>> in this >>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>> >>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>> >>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>> >>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get >>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>> H(P,P) >>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>> computation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>> >>> >>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final >>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that >>> H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >> >> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report >> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY > predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H* *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running* *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion > (in this one case)... -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Cbl3L.783160$BKL8.346007@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #58929 |
On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>>> in this >>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>> >>>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>> >>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to >>>>>> get >>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>>> H(P,P) >>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>> computation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final >>>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given >>>> that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >>> >>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report >>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY >> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. >> > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) > If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H* > *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running* > *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly > report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. > > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion > > (in this one case)... > Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and correctly determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not halt. A correct simulation demonstrates the behavior of direct execution, so the fact that the D based on the H that you are talking about (the one that "correctly" returns 0) will return a 1, showing that H was actually incoorect, says that H never had a correct determination that any correct simulation (its or otherwise) would never halt. Note, Since H DOES abort its simulation, a condition based on it NEVER aborting doesn't apply. Yes, people agree that if H NEVER aborts, then the D built on it will be non-halting. This DOESN'T mean that a D built on an H that aborts because it INCORRECT thinks that the input is non-halting because it incorrectly uses that rule is non-halting, because once H does abort, the premise it used no longer holds. It is If H doesn't abort until it proves something, it is if H NEVER aborts. H can not use behavior based on that to decide it is ok to abort. THAT is you logical fallicy. You are just proving your stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tikqn3$3i0ka$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58930 |
On 10/17/2022 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>>>> in this >>>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael >>>>>>>>> Sipser* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" >>>>>>> to get >>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>>>> H(P,P) >>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>> computation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final >>>>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given >>>>> that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >>>> >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>> report >>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> >>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY >>> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. >>> >> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H* >> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running* >> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. >> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion >> > (in this one case)... >> > > Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and correctly > determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not halt. > No his agreement is stronger than that, you are not paying close enough attention or you don't care about the truth. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 20:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UMm3L.108930$ocy7.71143@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #58934 |
On 10/17/22 8:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider >>>>>>>>>> referenced in this >>>>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael >>>>>>>>>> Sipser* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect >>>>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" >>>>>>>> to get >>>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>>>>> H(P,P) >>>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>>> computation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not >>>>>>> aborted? >>>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a >>>>>> final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, >>>>>> given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >>>>> >>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>>> report >>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>> >>>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY >>>> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. >>>> >>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H* >>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running* >>> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> >>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. >>> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion >>> > (in this one case)... >>> >> >> Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and >> correctly determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not >> halt. >> > No his agreement is stronger than that, you are not paying close enough > attention or you don't care about the truth. > No, he agreed to the exact words you gave to him, and you need to interpret according to what HE defines the words to be. You are the one that doesn't care about the truth. You are the one that doesn't seem to know what "Correct" means. You are just proving you are a pathological liar who has buried their reputation under the pile of falssehood they have been telling over the past years. You are just too stupid to realize it. I think you have gaslighted yourself. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 20:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [Ben agrees] |
| Message-ID | <tiku1t$449$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58939 |
On 10/17/2022 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/17/22 8:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider >>>>>>>>>>> referenced in this >>>>>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review >>>>>>>>>>> this paper >>>>>>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael >>>>>>>>>>> Sipser* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect >>>>>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" >>>>>>>>> to get >>>>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. >>>>>>>>> Whatever H >>>>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is >>>>>>>>> irrelevant. H(P,P) >>>>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>>>> computation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not >>>>>>>> aborted? >>>>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a >>>>>>> final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, >>>>>>> given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>>>> report >>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>> >>>>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and >>>>> CORRECTLY predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. >>>>> >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>> If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H* >>>> *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running* >>>> *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>> >>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. >>>> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion >>>> > (in this one case)... >>>> >>> >>> Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and >>> correctly determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not >>> halt. >>> >> No his agreement is stronger than that, you are not paying close >> enough attention or you don't care about the truth. >> > > No, he agreed to the exact words you gave to him, and you need to > interpret according to what HE defines the words to be. H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H applies the Sipser approved criterion. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <tikqis$3i0ka$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58924 |
On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>> in this >>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>> >>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>> >>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>> >>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get >>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>> H(P,P) >>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>> computation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>> >>> >>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final >>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that >>> H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >> >> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report >> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY > predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. > On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion > (in this one case)... Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm this. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 02:36 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <tiksen$3hqp3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58933 |
Disgusting liar Peter Olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>>> in this >>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>> >>>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>> >>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to >>>>>> get >>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>>> H(P,P) >>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>> computation. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final >>>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given >>>> that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >>> >>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report >>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY >> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. >> > On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. > > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion > > (in this one case)... > > Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. > I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm this. > There are several reasons to puke when reading this post of your, Peter. You are like all fanatics and bigots, you have no limit in immorality. If you were right about judgement from your "maker" you believe in, you'll burn in Hell for Eternity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <tiktj4$1u9q$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58936 |
On 10/17/2022 7:36 PM, Python wrote: > Disgusting liar Peter Olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>>>> in this >>>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael >>>>>>>>> Sipser* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" >>>>>>> to get >>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>>>> H(P,P) >>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>> computation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted? >>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final >>>>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given >>>>> that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >>>> >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>> report >>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> >>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY >>> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. >>> >> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. >> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion >> > (in this one case)... >> >> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm this. >> > > There are several reasons to puke when reading this post of your, Peter. > > You are like all fanatics and bigots, you have no limit in immorality. > > If you were right about judgement from your "maker" you believe in, > you'll burn in Hell for Eternity. > > In other words you can't actually point out any mistakes. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 03:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <tikttc$3hqp3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58943 |
Complete FRAUD and malicious Peter Olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 7:36 PM, Python wrote: >> Disgusting liar Peter Olcott wrote: >>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider >>>>>>>>>> referenced in this >>>>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>>>> paper >>>>>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael >>>>>>>>>> Sipser* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect >>>>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" >>>>>>>> to get >>>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H >>>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. >>>>>>>> H(P,P) >>>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>>> computation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not >>>>>>> aborted? >>>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a >>>>>> final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, >>>>>> given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >>>>> >>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>>> report >>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>> >>>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY >>>> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. >>>> >>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. >>> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion >>> > (in this one case)... >>> >>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm this. >>> >> >> There are several reasons to puke when reading this post of your, Peter. >> >> You are like all fanatics and bigots, you have no limit in immorality. >> >> If you were right about judgement from your "maker" you believe in, >> you'll burn in Hell for Eternity. >> >> > > In other words you can't actually point out any mistakes. I, and other, pointed out all of your mistakes Peter. In other words you do not deserve any answer after so much lies, especially lies about what other people actually said. You are a piece of dirt that would deserve to burn in Hell if your idiotic beliefs made sense. I'll open up a bottle of Champagne when I'll learnt you die.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 20:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <tikue5$3i0ka$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58944 |
On 10/17/2022 8:01 PM, Python wrote: > Complete FRAUD and malicious Peter Olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 7:36 PM, Python wrote: >>> Disgusting liar Peter Olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider >>>>>>>>>>> referenced in this >>>>>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review >>>>>>>>>>> this paper >>>>>>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael >>>>>>>>>>> Sipser* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect >>>>>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" >>>>>>>>> to get >>>>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. >>>>>>>>> Whatever H >>>>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is >>>>>>>>> irrelevant. H(P,P) >>>>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>>>> computation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not >>>>>>>> aborted? >>>>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a >>>>>>> final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, >>>>>>> given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>>>> report >>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>> >>>>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and >>>>> CORRECTLY predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. >>>>> >>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. >>>> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion >>>> > (in this one case)... >>>> >>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm >>>> this. >>>> >>> >>> There are several reasons to puke when reading this post of your, Peter. >>> >>> You are like all fanatics and bigots, you have no limit in immorality. >>> >>> If you were right about judgement from your "maker" you believe in, >>> you'll burn in Hell for Eternity. >>> >>> >> >> In other words you can't actually point out any mistakes. > > I, and other, pointed out all of your mistakes Peter. > > In other words you do not deserve any answer after so much > lies, especially lies about what other people actually said. You > are a piece of dirt that would deserve to burn in Hell if > your idiotic beliefs made sense. > > I'll open up a bottle of Champagne when I'll learnt you die. > I would not be so callous to you. I always wish the best for most everyone. I wish the best for you. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-18 03:24 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <tikv8b$3hqp3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58947 |
Disgusting FRAUD Peter Olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 8:01 PM, Python wrote: >> Complete FRAUD and malicious Peter Olcott wrote: >>> On 10/17/2022 7:36 PM, Python wrote: >>>> Disgusting liar Peter Olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider >>>>>>>>>>>> referenced in this >>>>>>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review >>>>>>>>>>>> this paper >>>>>>>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael >>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And what does he say about: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect >>>>>>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... >>>>>>>>>> unless" to get >>>>>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. >>>>>>>>>> Whatever H >>>>>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is >>>>>>>>>> irrelevant. H(P,P) >>>>>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>>>>> computation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not >>>>>>>>> aborted? >>>>>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a >>>>>>>> final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, >>>>>>>> given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>>>>> report >>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and >>>>>> CORRECTLY predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply. >>>>>> >>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation. >>>>> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion >>>>> > (in this one case)... >>>>> >>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting >>>>> criteria. >>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are several reasons to puke when reading this post of your, >>>> Peter. >>>> >>>> You are like all fanatics and bigots, you have no limit in immorality. >>>> >>>> If you were right about judgement from your "maker" you believe in, >>>> you'll burn in Hell for Eternity. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> In other words you can't actually point out any mistakes. >> >> I, and other, pointed out all of your mistakes Peter. >> >> In other words you do not deserve any answer after so much >> lies, especially lies about what other people actually said. You >> are a piece of dirt that would deserve to burn in Hell if >> your idiotic beliefs made sense. >> >> I'll open up a bottle of Champagne when I'll learnt you die. >> > > I would not be so callous to you. I always wish the best for most > everyone. I wish the best for you. > > You harmed people, you deliberately lied about what other people say. You don't wish "best", you explicitly wrote that people contracting you will "burn in Hell", with idiotic scripture quotes. You deserve your fate: illness and death. Maybe there is a God after all (joke :-) there is none). Go to the Hell you believe in. I'll enjoy my Champagne bottle. When you'll die a despicable person will have disappeared. We are not people who "learnt-by-rote", we actually use our brain and don't take for granted any idea we pull out of our ass (as you do), we took time to think about it. Cranks of your kind are just a kind of joke, until you start to actually involve other people in your madness. At that point you have no excuse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 13 [1] 2 3 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web