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 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] |
| Message-ID | <tiegmb$7kp$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58671 |
On 10/15/2022 9:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:26:56 -0500 > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2022 9:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:38 -0500 >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500 >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500 >>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D would never stop running unless aborted then H can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting criteria of this halt decider. You have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed that it meet this criteria. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that >>>>>>>>>>>>> it itself does. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he >>>>>>>>>>>> has been for years) that H can decide based on what would >>>>>>>>>>>> happen if H were different. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the >>>>>>>>>>> behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD >>>>>>>>>>> never aborted its simulation of this non-halting input. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a >>>>>>>>>>> loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, >>>>>>>>>>> thus never reports. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider >>>>>>>>>> decides on what the behavior is of the machine the input >>>>>>>>>> represents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the >>>>>>>>>> SHD that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you >>>>>>>>>> to look at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the >>>>>>>>>> decider. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt >>>>>>>>>> Decider would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE >>>>>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That >>>>>>>>>> breaks the dependence of the definiton on itself. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that >>>>>>>>>> definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders >>>>>>>>>> can't exist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide >>>>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt >>>>>>>> decider. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and >>>>>>> I didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the >>>>>>> ground up and it actually works unlike yours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>>> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me >>>>>> and you stealing my work. >>>>> >>>>> That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt >>>> decider" >>>> >>>> When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work. >>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright >>>> >>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory >>>> >>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) >>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] >>>> >>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> >> Hi! >>>> >> >>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original >>>> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging >>>> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.) >>>> > >>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then >>>> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far >>>> > no one has done that. Many people did point out their own false >>>> > assumptions though. >>>> > >>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that >>>> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls >>>> >> the halt decider as >>>> >>>> The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your failure >>>> to acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft. >>> >>> No, you did not come up with the idea of using simulation to >>> determine if an input halts. >>> >>> /Flibble >> >> Cite your source. >> >> Every other reference to a "simulating halt decider" simply rejects >> it out-of-hand as infeasible. Only my reference includes the criteria >> for H to correctly determine the halt status of the conventional >> "impossible" inputs to the halting theorem. It is this notion of a >> "simulating halt decider" that I am the sole originator of. > > Using a universal turing machine to emulate another universal turing > machine is widespread in the HP literature; "emulation" is more or less > a synonym of "simulation"; the term "interpreter" is also used. > > /Flibble > OK so everyone already knows about simulators, the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea. Please do not refer to this idea without citing me as the source. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 15:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] |
| Message-ID | <20221015154219.000011e3@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58677 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:39:07 -0500 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2022 9:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:26:56 -0500 > > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/15/2022 9:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:38 -0500 > >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500 > >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500 > >>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400 > >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D would never stop running unless aborted then H can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the non-halting criteria of this halt decider. You have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed that it meet this criteria. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it itself does. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says. PO is saying (as he > >>>>>>>>>>>> has been for years) that H can decide based on what would > >>>>>>>>>>>> happen if H were different. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the > >>>>>>>>>>> behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this > >>>>>>>>>>> SHD never aborted its simulation of this non-halting > >>>>>>>>>>> input. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a > >>>>>>>>>>> loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop, > >>>>>>>>>>> thus never reports. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider > >>>>>>>>>> decides on what the behavior is of the machine the input > >>>>>>>>>> represents. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the > >>>>>>>>>> SHD that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you > >>>>>>>>>> to look at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the > >>>>>>>>>> decider. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt > >>>>>>>>>> Decider would report non-haliting if it could prove that > >>>>>>>>>> THE CORRECT SIMULATION (not what it does) would never > >>>>>>>>>> halt. That breaks the dependence of the definiton on > >>>>>>>>>> itself. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that > >>>>>>>>>> definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt > >>>>>>>>>> Deciders can't exist. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly > >>>>>>>>> decide on the actual behaviour the input represents. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> /Flibble > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating > >>>>>>>> halt decider. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it > >>>>>>> and I didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own > >>>>>>> from the ground up and it actually works unlike yours. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> /Flibble > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find > >>>>>> me and you stealing my work. > >>>>> > >>>>> That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work. > >>>>> > >>>>> /Flibble > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt > >>>> decider" > >>>> > >>>> When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work. > >>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright > >>>> > >>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory > >>>> > >>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) > >>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] > >>>> > >>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>> >> Hi! > >>>> >> > >>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important > >>>> >> original solution to the halting problem until all of you > >>>> >> stop engaging with Olcott and his non-solution to the > >>>> >> halting problem.) > >>>> > > >>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect > >>>> > then at least one person could correctly point out an > >>>> > error. So far no one has done that. Many people did point > >>>> > out their own false assumptions though. > >>>> > > >>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* > >>>> >> that forks the simulation into two branches if the input > >>>> >> calls the halt decider as > >>>> > >>>> The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your > >>>> failure to acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft. > >>> > >>> No, you did not come up with the idea of using simulation to > >>> determine if an input halts. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >> > >> Cite your source. > >> > >> Every other reference to a "simulating halt decider" simply rejects > >> it out-of-hand as infeasible. Only my reference includes the > >> criteria for H to correctly determine the halt status of the > >> conventional "impossible" inputs to the halting theorem. It is > >> this notion of a "simulating halt decider" that I am the sole > >> originator of. > > > > Using a universal turing machine to emulate another universal turing > > machine is widespread in the HP literature; "emulation" is more or > > less a synonym of "simulation"; the term "interpreter" is also used. > > > > /Flibble > > > > OK so everyone already knows about simulators, the idea of a > "simulating halt decider" is my idea. Please do not refer to this > idea without citing me as the source. It is not your idea so you do not deserve a citation. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 06:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <552fc6f7-a0a0-437e-84c5-c33b8c144689n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58651 |
On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > > ... > > The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the > > actual behaviour the input represents. > > > > /Flibble > > > Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt decider. You don't know what OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and acceptable than POOH.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <tiefc6$1o1g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58664 |
On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: > On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: >>> ... >>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the >>> actual behaviour the input represents. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt decider. > > You don't know what OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. > You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and acceptable than POOH. When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this Flibble plagiarism reference to my work: https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) [--Flibble violates my copyright--] On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> Hi! >> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original solution >> to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging with Olcott and >> his non-solution to the halting problem.) > > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far no > one has done that. Many people did point out their own false > assumptions though. > >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls >> the halt decider as -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 15:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <20221015152540.000056e7@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58668 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: > > On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > >>> ... > >>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on > >>> the actual behaviour the input represents. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt > >> decider. > > > > You don't know what > > OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. > > You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention > > (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and > > acceptable than POOH. > > When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. > > A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this > Flibble plagiarism reference to my work: > > https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright > > Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory > > Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) > [--Flibble violates my copyright--] > > On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: > > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original > >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging > >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.) > > > > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then > > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far no > > one has done that. Many people did point out their own false > > assumptions though. > > > >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that > >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls > >> the halt decider as That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you will not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't stolen your work. The simple fact is that the Flibble Signaling Halt Decider gives a correct halting decision for all inputs whilst your "solution" does not which is proof that I have not stolen your work: my solution uses a fundamentally different method of simulation to your "solution". /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] |
| Message-ID | <tieggk$7kp$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58669 |
On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500 > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: >>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on >>>>> the actual behaviour the input represents. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt >>>> decider. >>> >>> You don't know what >>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. >>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention >>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and >>> acceptable than POOH. >> >> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. >> >> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this >> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work: >> >> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright >> >> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory >> >> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) >> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] >> >> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: >> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> >> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original >> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging >> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.) >> > >> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then >> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far no >> > one has done that. Many people did point out their own false >> > assumptions though. >> > >> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that >> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls >> >> the halt decider as > > That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you will not > be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't stolen your work. > You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is your idea. This is academic theft. > The simple fact is that the Flibble Signaling Halt Decider gives a > correct halting decision for all inputs whilst your "solution" does not > which is proof that I have not stolen your work: my solution uses a > fundamentally different method of simulation to your "solution". > > /Flibble > > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 15:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] |
| Message-ID | <20221015154055.000003f3@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58674 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500 > > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: > >>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > >>>>> ... > >>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide > >>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents. > >>>>> > >>>>> /Flibble > >>>>> > >>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt > >>>> decider. > >>> > >>> You don't know what > >>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. > >>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention > >>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and > >>> acceptable than POOH. > >> > >> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. > >> > >> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this > >> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work: > >> > >> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright > >> > >> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory > >> > >> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) > >> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] > >> > >> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: > >> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >> >> Hi! > >> >> > >> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original > >> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging > >> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.) > >> > > >> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then > >> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far > >> > no one has done that. Many people did point out their own false > >> > assumptions though. > >> > > >> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that > >> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls > >> >> the halt decider as > > > > That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you will > > not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't stolen > > your work. > > You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is your > idea. This is academic theft. I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of simulating halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating halt decider. > > > The simple fact is that the Flibble Signaling Halt Decider gives a > > correct halting decision for all inputs whilst your "solution" does > > not which is proof that I have not stolen your work: my solution > > uses a fundamentally different method of simulation to your > > "solution". > > > > /Flibble > > > > /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] |
| Message-ID | <tiehm4$2otks$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58678 |
On 10/15/2022 9:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500 > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500 >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide >>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt >>>>>> decider. >>>>> >>>>> You don't know what >>>>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. >>>>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention >>>>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and >>>>> acceptable than POOH. >>>> >>>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. >>>> >>>> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this >>>> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work: >>>> >>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright >>>> >>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory >>>> >>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) >>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] >>>> >>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> >> Hi! >>>> >> >>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original >>>> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging >>>> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.) >>>> > >>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then >>>> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far >>>> > no one has done that. Many people did point out their own false >>>> > assumptions though. >>>> > >>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that >>>> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls >>>> >> the halt decider as >>> >>> That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you will >>> not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't stolen >>> your work. >> >> You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is your >> idea. This is academic theft. > > I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of simulating > halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating halt decider. > Not citing me as the source of "simulating halt decider" is plagiarism. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 16:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] |
| Message-ID | <20221015160247.00004aa4@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58683 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:56:03 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2022 9:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500 > > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500 > >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide > >>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> /Flibble > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt > >>>>>> decider. > >>>>> > >>>>> You don't know what > >>>>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. > >>>>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention > >>>>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and > >>>>> acceptable than POOH. > >>>> > >>>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. > >>>> > >>>> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this > >>>> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work: > >>>> > >>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright > >>>> > >>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory > >>>> > >>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) > >>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] > >>>> > >>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>> >> Hi! > >>>> >> > >>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important > >>>> >> original solution to the halting problem until all of you > >>>> >> stop engaging with Olcott and his non-solution to the > >>>> >> halting problem.) > >>>> > > >>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect > >>>> > then at least one person could correctly point out an > >>>> > error. So far no one has done that. Many people did point > >>>> > out their own false assumptions though. > >>>> > > >>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* > >>>> >> that forks the simulation into two branches if the input > >>>> >> calls the halt decider as > >>> > >>> That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you > >>> will not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't > >>> stolen your work. > >> > >> You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is > >> your idea. This is academic theft. > > > > I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of simulating > > halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating halt decider. > > > > Not citing me as the source of "simulating halt decider" is > plagiarism. Simulation is not your idea so you deserve no such citation and your so called simulating halt decider is no such thing as it fails to give a correct halting decision for certain inputs, unlike my idea. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 10:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] |
| Message-ID | <tiejbu$1kjt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58686 |
On 10/15/2022 10:02 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:56:03 -0500 > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/15/2022 9:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500 >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500 >>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide >>>>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt >>>>>>>> decider. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't know what >>>>>>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. >>>>>>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention >>>>>>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and >>>>>>> acceptable than POOH. >>>>>> >>>>>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. >>>>>> >>>>>> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this >>>>>> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory >>>>>> >>>>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) >>>>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> >> Hi! >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important >>>>>> >> original solution to the halting problem until all of you >>>>>> >> stop engaging with Olcott and his non-solution to the >>>>>> >> halting problem.) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect >>>>>> > then at least one person could correctly point out an >>>>>> > error. So far no one has done that. Many people did point >>>>>> > out their own false assumptions though. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* >>>>>> >> that forks the simulation into two branches if the input >>>>>> >> calls the halt decider as >>>>> >>>>> That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you >>>>> will not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't >>>>> stolen your work. >>>> >>>> You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is >>>> your idea. This is academic theft. >>> >>> I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of simulating >>> halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating halt decider. >>> >> >> Not citing me as the source of "simulating halt decider" is >> plagiarism. > > Simulation is not your idea so you deserve no such citation and your > so called simulating halt decider is no such thing as it fails to give > a correct halting decision for certain inputs, unlike my idea. > > /Flibble This source-code proves that Sipser_H does correctly simulate its input Sipser_D and Sipser_H does correctly determine that Sipser_D would never stop running unless its simulation of Sipser_D is aborted. Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version. (a) x86utm operating system (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c (d) The execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is shown in Halt7_Sipser.txt https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 16:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed [academic theft] |
| Message-ID | <20221015162712.00006261@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58688 |
On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 10:24:45 -0500 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > On 10/15/2022 10:02 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:56:03 -0500 > > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/15/2022 9:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500 > >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500 > >>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly > >>>>>>>>> decide on the actual behaviour the input represents. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> /Flibble > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating > >>>>>>>> halt decider. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You don't know what > >>>>>>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are > >>>>>>> meant. You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's > >>>>>>> invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much > >>>>>>> brilliant and acceptable than POOH. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this > >>>>>> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and > >>>>>> comp.theory > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) > >>>>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>>> >> Hi! > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important > >>>>>> >> original solution to the halting problem until all of > >>>>>> >> you stop engaging with Olcott and his non-solution to > >>>>>> >> the halting problem.) > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was > >>>>>> > incorrect then at least one person could correctly point > >>>>>> > out an error. So far no one has done that. Many people > >>>>>> > did point out their own false assumptions though. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* > >>>>>> >> that forks the simulation into two branches if the input > >>>>>> >> calls the halt decider as > >>>>> > >>>>> That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you > >>>>> will not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't > >>>>> stolen your work. > >>>> > >>>> You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is > >>>> your idea. This is academic theft. > >>> > >>> I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of > >>> simulating halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating > >>> halt decider. > >> > >> Not citing me as the source of "simulating halt decider" is > >> plagiarism. > > > > Simulation is not your idea so you deserve no such citation and your > > so called simulating halt decider is no such thing as it fails to > > give a correct halting decision for certain inputs, unlike my idea. > > > > /Flibble > > This source-code proves that Sipser_H does correctly simulate its > input Sipser_D and Sipser_H does correctly determine that Sipser_D > would never stop running unless its simulation of Sipser_D is aborted. > > Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version. > (a) x86utm operating system > (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows > (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within > Halt7.c (d) The execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is > shown in Halt7_Sipser.txt > https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip I am sure the Good Professor would be mildly irritated by your use of his name in your junk. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 07:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <b85c49bf-9d48-491c-bbe7-90104a487883n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58668 |
On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 22:16:41 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: > > On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: > >>> ... > >>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the > >>> actual behaviour the input represents. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt decider. > > > > You don't know what OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. > > You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and acceptable than POOH. > When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. Your work is "POOH Decider", nothing to do with the P executed independently. Your claim "The HP is refuted" is false, you are spreading false information. (copyright?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <tieh4c$2otks$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58676 |
On 10/15/2022 9:38 AM, wij wrote: > On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 22:16:41 UTC+8, olcott wrote: >> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: >>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the >>>>> actual behaviour the input represents. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt decider. >>> >>> You don't know what OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. >>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and acceptable than POOH. >> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. > > Your work is "POOH Decider", nothing to do with the P executed independently. > Your claim "The HP is refuted" is false, you are spreading false information. (copyright?) *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. It is affirmed that the above H does correctly determine the halt status of its input. My source-code proves that H does correctly simulate its input D and does correctly determine that D would never stop running unless its simulation is aborted. Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version. (a) x86utm operating system (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c (d) The full execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is shown in Halt7_Sipser.txt https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-15 09:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Trickery of Ben refusing to accept a SHD even after it has been affirmed |
| Message-ID | <tiehfr$2otks$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58676 |
On 10/15/2022 9:38 AM, wij wrote: > On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 22:16:41 UTC+8, olcott wrote: >> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote: >>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the >>>>> actual behaviour the input represents. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt decider. >>> >>> You don't know what OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant. >>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and acceptable than POOH. >> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work. > > Your work is "POOH Decider", nothing to do with the P executed independently. > Your claim "The HP is refuted" is false, you are spreading false information. (copyright?) *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. It is affirmed that the above H does correctly determine the halt status of its input D. This source-code proves that Sipser_H does correctly simulate its input Sipser_D and does correctly determine that Sipser_D would never stop running unless its simulation is aborted. Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version. (a) x86utm operating system (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c (d) The full execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is shown in Halt7_Sipser.txt https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 19:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wn93imhx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #58470 |
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's > mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my > copy to check it out. No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However, H(P,P) == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation." His other suggestion is to write a reply that is "harsh, scathing and designed to make the writer hate you". I can't imagine Professor Sipser taking that option. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 13:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9n1r$1rlq0$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58486 |
On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > >> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's >> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my >> copy to check it out. > > No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two > recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the > error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. > For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this > problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However, H(P,P) > == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation." > > His other suggestion is to write a reply that is "harsh, scathing and > designed to make the writer hate you". I can't imagine Professor Sipser > taking that option. > When we apply the Sipser approved criteria then H(P,P)==0 is correct. *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words (and no more)* If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 19:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0012L.624915$iiS8.354194@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #58488 |
On 10/13/22 2:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: >> >>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's >>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my >>> copy to check it out. >> >> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two >> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the >> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. >> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this >> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However, H(P,P) >> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation." >> >> His other suggestion is to write a reply that is "harsh, scathing and >> designed to make the writer hate you". I can't imagine Professor Sipser >> taking that option. >> > > When we apply the Sipser approved criteria then H(P,P)==0 is correct. > > *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. > > Nope, because you H doesn't do a correct simulation that shows that the input is non-halting. It never actually proves that the input WILL be non-halting with the H that D callsbeing this actual H, which WILL abort its own simulation if this one does. You only prove that if H doesn't EVER abort its simulation, then the input is non-halting, and if H is that, then it CAN'T actually abort, or it breaks the requirements of the logic. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 13:07 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <tibcdq$22cn7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58488 |
On 2022-10-12 15:08:20 +0000, olcott said: > Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks > correct: > > If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation > of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be > correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? On 2022-10-13 18:56:58 +0000, olcott said: > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words (and no more)* > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H > correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running > unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report > that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. Why the two verbatim quotes are different? Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 09:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tibqhd$g8d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58534 |
On 10/14/2022 5:07 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-10-12 15:08:20 +0000, olcott said: > >> 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? > > On 2022-10-13 18:56:58 +0000, olcott said: > >> *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. > > Why the two verbatim quotes are different? > > Mikko > The first time that he agreed with me he agreed with a question. I translated this question into a statement and asked him again. -- 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 00:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tiio6t$3cg9h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58486 |
On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > >> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's >> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my >> copy to check it out. > > No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two > recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the > error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way. > For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this > problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However, H(P,P) > == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation." > If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What *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. > His other suggestion is to write a reply that is "harsh, scathing and > designed to make the writer hate you". I can't imagine Professor Sipser > taking that option. > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web