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 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 20:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <tikvef$3i0ka$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58948 |
On 10/17/2022 8:24 PM, Python wrote: > 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. > To the best of my knowledge no one has pointed out a single material error in anything that I have said in the last year about my halting theorem work. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 21:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <snn3L.108933$ocy7.65171@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #58950 |
On 10/17/22 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: > To the best of my knowledge no one has pointed out a single material > error in anything that I have said in the last year about my halting > theorem work. > Which more shows your lack of knowledge then the soundness of your arguements. You have just showed yourself to be too stupid to uderstand the basics of what you are talking about, and thus don't understand your errors. You are just proving your ignorance with these statements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 20:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <KOm3L.108931$ocy7.65363@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #58933 |
On 10/17/22 8:04 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. >> > 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. > No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation of the criteria, not the actual one. Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the endorcement is just another of your lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 20:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <tiku6m$449$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58941 |
On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/17/22 8:04 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. >>> >> 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. >> > > > No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation of > the criteria, not the actual one. > > Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the endorcement > is just another of your lies. Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. 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 | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 21:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <Ngn3L.108932$ocy7.77175@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #58946 |
On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/17/22 8:04 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. >>>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation of >> the criteria, not the actual one. >> >> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >> endorcement is just another of your lies. > > Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted to > rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact that I am > correct has no correct rebuttal. No, Ben points out many error. You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. > > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. > > 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. > > Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, because Sio\pser_D is a HALTING sequence of configurations, so if Sipser_H thinks otherwise, it is in ERROR by the meaning of "Correct". The ONLY way for Sipser_D to be non-Halting is for Sipser_H to fail to answer, which disqualifies Sipser_H to even be a decider. You some how belief that a false statement is possible to be "Proven" and thus establish something at a new truth. That just shows the level of insanity in your mind. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 20:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <tikvt9$3i0ka$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58949 |
On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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. >>>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation >>> of the criteria, not the actual one. >>> >>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >> >> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted to >> rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact that I >> am correct has no correct rebuttal. > > No, Ben points out many error. > > You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >> >> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... > > Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. > >> >> 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. >> >> > > Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved criteria. Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. -- 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 21:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <jAn3L.441186$SAT4.84474@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #58952 |
On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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. >>>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation >>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>> >>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>> >>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted >>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact that >>> I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >> >> No, Ben points out many error. >> >> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>> >>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... >> >> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, > > The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved criteria. Nope. > > Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does meet > the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. > > Nope. You are just too dumb to understand. Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation would do, Since D returns 1, H can't correctly determine that it doesn't halt. Since H aborts its simulation, any criteria base on H not aborting its simulation doesn't apply. H can determine that the OTHER D built on the OTHER H is non-halting, but that isn't the question that H is being ask, so by your own definitons, you are a lying bastard to use that fact and claim it applies to the actual question being asked. YOU FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 20:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <til15s$3i0ka$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58953 |
On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation >>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>>> >>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>>> >>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted >>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact >>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >>> >>> No, Ben points out many error. >>> >>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>>> >>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... >>> >>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, >> >> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved >> criteria. > > > Nope. > >> >> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does >> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >> >> > Nope. > > You are just too dumb to understand. > > Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation > would do, > *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* It has never been about a correct simulation of D. It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D until H* *correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running* *unless aborted* then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. 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)... H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion Sipser_H can correctly determine the halt status of Sipser_D according to 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 | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <24428554-5ea8-4d93-a655-a65e691de0ean@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58954 |
On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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.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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation
> >>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
> >>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted
> >>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact
> >>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
> >>>
> >>> No, Ben points out many error.
> >>>
> >>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
> >>>>
> >>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
> >>>
> >>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
> >>
> >> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
> >> criteria.
> >
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >>
> >> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
> >> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
> >>
> >>
> > Nope.
> >
> > You are just too dumb to understand.
> >
> > Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation
> > would do,
> >
> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games*
> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function:
For *any* algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X and input Y:
H(X,Y)==1 if and only if X(Y) halts, and
H(X,Y)==0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt
For H to be a halt decider, H(P,P) is REQUIRED to report if this EXACT code will halt if invoked as P(P):
====================================
u32 H(ptr P, ptr I)
{
u32 End_Of_Code = get_code_end((u32)H);
u32 Address_of_H = (u32)H;
u32 code_end = get_code_end((u32)P);
Decoded_Line_Of_Code *decoded = (Decoded_Line_Of_Code*)
Allocate(sizeof(Decoded_Line_Of_Code));
Registers* master_state = (Registers*) Allocate(sizeof(Registers));
Registers* slave_state = (Registers*) Allocate(sizeof(Registers));
u32* slave_stack = Allocate(0x10000); // 64k;
u32 execution_trace = (u32)Allocate(sizeof(Decoded_Line_Of_Code) * 10000);
// 10000 lines of x86 code
Output("Address_of_H:", Address_of_H);
Init_slave_state((u32)P, (u32)I, End_Of_Code, slave_state, slave_stack);
Output((char*)"\nH: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:", execution_trace);
Output((char*)"Address_of_H:", Address_of_H); // 2022-06-11
if (Decide_Halting((char*)"H: ", &execution_trace, &decoded, code_end, &master_state,
&slave_state, &slave_stack, Address_of_H, (u32)P, (u32)I))
goto END_OF_CODE;
return 0; // Does not halt
END_OF_CODE:
OutputString((char*)"H: End Simulation Input Terminated Normally\n\n");
return 1; // Input has normally terminated
}
/* for brevity, code of functions called by H are omitted but it is assumed they are included,
as well as any functions they call down to the OS level */
void P(ptr x)
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
====================================
NOT this code:
====================================
u32 H(ptr P, ptr I)
{
P(I)
}
void P(ptr x)
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
====================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 21:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <til26u$3i0ka$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58955 |
On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation >>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted >>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact >>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >>>>> >>>>> No, Ben points out many error. >>>>> >>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>>>>> >>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... >>>>> >>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, >>>> >>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved >>>> criteria. >>> >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>>> >>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does >>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>>> >>>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> You are just too dumb to understand. >>> >>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation >>> would do, >>> >> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* >> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. >> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. > > Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function: All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself. -- 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 | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <c0f36626-9a4a-402a-beda-e91e759cf953n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58957 |
On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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.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. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation > >>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the > >>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted > >>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact > >>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, Ben points out many error. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... > >>>>> > >>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, > >>>> > >>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved > >>>> criteria. > >>> > >>> > >>> Nope. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does > >>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Nope. > >>> > >>> You are just too dumb to understand. > >>> > >>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation > >>> would do, > >>> > >> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* > >> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. > >> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. > > > > Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function: > All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself. Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response. No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input, halt or not. It is impossible to build a piece of code that can determine that in all cases, and answering some other slightly related question doesn't change that. Your H is like a politician, who when asked a question it can't answer, says "let me answer the the question I thought you were going to ask". That's not how it works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 21:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <fdednXdiZp5XjdP-nZ2dnZfqlJxg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #58960 |
On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation >>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted >>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact >>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, >>>>>> >>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved >>>>>> criteria. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does >>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> You are just too dumb to understand. >>>>> >>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation >>>>> would do, >>>>> >>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* >>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. >>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. >>> >>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function: >> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself. > > Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response. > It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria. -- 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 | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <09a4a1a5-2036-457c-b0bb-7f8052074378n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58963 |
On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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.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. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation > >>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the > >>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted > >>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact > >>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved > >>>>>> criteria. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Nope. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does > >>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Nope. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are just too dumb to understand. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation > >>>>> would do, > >>>>> > >>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* > >>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. > >>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. > >>> > >>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function: > >> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself. > > > > Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response. > > > It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt > status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria. No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input, halt or not. It is impossible to build a piece of code that can determine that in all cases, and answering some other slightly related question doesn't change that. Your H is like a politician, who when asked a question it can't answer, says "let me answer the the question I thought you were going to ask". That's not how it works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 21:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <til46d$3liei$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58966 |
On 10/17/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation >>>>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted >>>>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact >>>>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved >>>>>>>> criteria. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does >>>>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation >>>>>>> would do, >>>>>>> >>>>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* >>>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. >>>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. >>>>> >>>>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function: >>>> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself. >>> >>> Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response. >>> >> It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt >> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria. > > No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input, One need not have an all knowing program to refute the single counter-example of all of the conventional proofs. > halt or not. It is impossible to build a piece of code that can determine that in all cases, and answering some other slightly related question doesn't change that. All of the conventional proofs rely on this same "impossible" input template, once the template is shown to be decidable these undecidability proofs lose their entire basis. > Your H is like a politician, who when asked a question it can't answer, says "let me answer the the question I thought you were going to ask". That's not how it works. So you think that professor Sipser is incorrect: *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 | Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 19:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <52d1b928-4a95-40e5-b84f-ee83287cadc3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58968 |
On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >> On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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.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. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation > >>>>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the > >>>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted > >>>>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact > >>>>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved > >>>>>>>> criteria. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nope. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does > >>>>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nope. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation > >>>>>>> would do, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* > >>>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. > >>>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. > >>>>> > >>>>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function: > >>>> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself. > >>> > >>> Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response. > >>> > >> It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt > >> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria. > > > > No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input, > One need not have an all knowing program to refute the single > counter-example of all of the conventional proofs. But it still needs to answer the same question. > > halt or not. It is impossible to build a piece of code that can determine that in all cases, and answering some other slightly related question doesn't change that. > All of the conventional proofs rely on this same "impossible" > input template, once the template is shown to be decidable > these undecidability proofs lose their entire basis. It is decidable, just not by the H built on it. Answering a different question doesn't change that. The halting function maps Halt(P,P) to 1, and the PO-halting function maps POH(H,P,P) to 0, so your H is not a halt decider. > > Your H is like a politician, who when asked a question it can't answer, says "let me answer the the question I thought you were going to ask". That's not how it works. > [ repeat of previously refuted statement ] So nothing more to say, I see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 22:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <til5cd$3liei$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58970 |
On 10/17/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>>>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted >>>>>>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact >>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved >>>>>>>>>> criteria. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does >>>>>>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation >>>>>>>>> would do, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* >>>>>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. >>>>>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function: >>>>>> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself. >>>>> >>>>> Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response. >>>>> >>>> It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt >>>> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria. >>> >>> No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input, >> One need not have an all knowing program to refute the single >> counter-example of all of the conventional proofs. > > But it still needs to answer the same question. > >>> halt or not. It is impossible to build a piece of code that can determine that in all cases, and answering some other slightly related question doesn't change that. >> All of the conventional proofs rely on this same "impossible" >> input template, once the template is shown to be decidable >> these undecidability proofs lose their entire basis. > > It is decidable, just not by the H built on it. Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8 machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code language ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped It seems that you are not honest about that. > Answering a different question doesn't change that. > > The halting function maps Halt(P,P) to 1, and the PO-halting function maps POH(H,P,P) to 0, so your H is not a halt decider. > >>> Your H is like a politician, who when asked a question it can't answer, says "let me answer the the question I thought you were going to ask". That's not how it works. >> [ repeat of previously refuted statement ] > > So nothing more to say, I see. -- 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 22:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <til6f1$3liei$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58970 |
On 10/17/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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.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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>>>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted >>>>>>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact >>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved >>>>>>>>>> criteria. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does >>>>>>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation >>>>>>>>> would do, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* >>>>>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. >>>>>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function: >>>>>> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself. >>>>> >>>>> Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response. >>>>> >>>> It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt >>>> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria. >>> >>> No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input, >> One need not have an all knowing program to refute the single >> counter-example of all of the conventional proofs. > > But it still needs to answer the same question. > >>> halt or not. It is impossible to build a piece of code that can determine that in all cases, and answering some other slightly related question doesn't change that. >> All of the conventional proofs rely on this same "impossible" >> input template, once the template is shown to be decidable >> these undecidability proofs lose their entire basis. > > It is decidable, just not by the H built on it. When Sipser_H is determining whether or not Sipser_D will ever stop running unless aborted competent software engineers will agree that Sipser_H can do that. Competent software engineers will understand that recursive simulation is structurally identical to recursive invocation. Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8 machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code language ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped -- 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 22:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <8Sn3L.108934$ocy7.97171@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #58954 |
On 10/17/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your >>>>>> misinterpreation of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>>>> >>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted >>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact >>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >>>> >>>> No, Ben points out many error. >>>> >>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>>>> >>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)... >>>> >>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, >>> >>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved >>> criteria. >> >> >> Nope. >> >>> >>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does >>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>> >>> >> Nope. >> >> You are just too dumb to understand. >> >> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation >> would do, >> > > *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* > It has never been about a correct simulation of D. > It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. And if H doesn't do a correct simulation, then your definition has no answer. PERIOD. You are stuck in an illogic. Since the H you have provided doesn't DO a correct simulation, that means it is just WRONG by your own definition. > > *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, *IF* H does a correct simulation and a correct determination it can do that. Since D returns 1, H can't correct determine something that doesn't happen. You are just proving your INSANITY to think that something that clearly doesn't happen has been proven. > > 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)... > > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion How, since it isn't true of THAT H. This is like saying your cat is a dog. > > Sipser_H can correctly determine the halt status of Sipser_D according > to the Sipser approved criterion. > > Nope, you are just proving you are INSANE. YOU HAVE FAILED.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-17 21:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <til2fl$3i0ka$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58956 |
On 10/17/2022 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/17/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your >>>>>>> misinterpreation of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has >>>>>> resorted to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when >>>>>> the fact that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >>>>> >>>>> No, Ben points out many error. >>>>> >>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>>>>> >>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one >>>>>> case)... >>>>> >>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, >>>> >>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved >>>> criteria. >>> >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>>> >>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does >>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>>> >>>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> You are just too dumb to understand. >>> >>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation >>> would do, >>> >> >> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* >> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. >> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. > > And if H doesn't do a correct simulation, then your definition has no > answer. PERIOD. 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)... Maybe when I tell you this a few hundred more times you will actually notice all of the words. -- 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 22:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [ Ben agrees ] |
| Message-ID | <Keo3L.108936$ocy7.30791@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #58959 |
On 10/17/22 10:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/17/2022 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/17/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your >>>>>>>> misinterpreation of the criteria, not the actual one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the >>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has >>>>>>> resorted to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when >>>>>>> the fact that I am correct has no correct rebuttal. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, Ben points out many error. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one >>>>>>> case)... >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results, >>>>> >>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved >>>>> criteria. >>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does >>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> You are just too dumb to understand. >>>> >>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT >>>> simulation would do, >>>> >>> >>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games* >>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D. >>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H. >> >> And if H doesn't do a correct simulation, then your definition has no >> answer. PERIOD. > > 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)... > > Maybe when I tell you this a few hundred more times you will actually > notice all of the words. > > Which isn't the question that H is supposed to ask, so you are admitting that you aren't doing the right problem. And, since H DOES stop its simulation, you can't use that to determine if D doesn't halt. YOU FAIL. YOU JUST PROVED YOU HAVE BEEN LYING about working on the halting problem. You have just shown you have wasted your last 18 years of life and will die with the reputation of a pathological lying idiot. Sorry, I see a hot time for you in the future.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web