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 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti76i2$1imqj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58413 |
On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >> 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? >> > You are attempting to use the argument from authority. Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority > That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? > But > Cleaning up you statement: > "If H determines that its simulation of D would never > stop running, might H abort the simulation and report > that D specifies a non-halting machine? " > H might do anything including ignoring its input and and playing a game of tic-tac-toe with itself. When-so-ever simulating halt decider H correctly determines that its correct simulation of its input D would never stop running unless aborted then it is always correct for H to abort its simulation of D and report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > This is true. But H cannot determine in every case that > the simulation will not stop running and therefore does > not itself alwaysstop running. I was only referring to Sipser's own H and D. That Professor Sipser agrees with the essential definition of a simulating halt decider seems to be an effective rebuttal to everyone here that is not in the same ball park of subject matter expertise. My purpose in getting Sipser's agreement on this key point is to establish enough credibility to get other world renown subject matter experts to review my work. A consensus of these subject matter experts would seem to form strong evidence that I am correct. *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a32d66db-240d-497d-8f9a-f9d0867088c2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58415 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: > On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote: > >> 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? > >> > > You are attempting to use the argument from authority. > > Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to > authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form > of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from > authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to > authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using > the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter > expert https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority > > > That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. > > And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as the > opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? > My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 17:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti7fnd$4dn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58419 |
On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>> 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? >>>> >>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >> >> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to >> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form >> of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from >> authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to >> authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using >> the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter >> expert https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >> >>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >> >> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as the >> opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >> > My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. > Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as the opinion of Professor Sipser. ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 17:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221013171707.000007d3@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58422 |
On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: > >> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote: > >>> > >>>> 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? > >>>> > >>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. > >> > >> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to > >> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the > >> form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of > >> argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, > >> the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious > >> examples of using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority > >> is not a subject-matter expert > >> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority > >>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. > >> > >> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as > >> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? > >> > > My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. > > > > Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is > probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as the > opinion of Professor Sipser. > > ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is sound using facts and logic in your own words. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 11:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9fd0$1unl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58464 |
On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>> >>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to >>>> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the >>>> form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of >>>> argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, >>>> the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious >>>> examples of using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority >>>> is not a subject-matter expert >>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>> >>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>> >>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>> >> >> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as the >> opinion of Professor Sipser. >> >> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz > > Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is sound > using facts and logic in your own words. > > /Flibble > I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified expert in the field is inductively sound. MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper): If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. When one accepts this definition of a simulating halt decider then my code shows that H correctly determines the halt status of D. When one rejects that definition of a simulating halt decider then my proof loses its required basis. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 17:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221013174738.000019fd@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58467 |
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 > > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> 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? > >>>>>> > >>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. > >>>> > >>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal > >>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often > >>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain > >>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong > >>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied > >>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: > >>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert > >>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority > >>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. > >>>> > >>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as > >>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? > >>>> > >>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. > >>> > >> > >> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is > >> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as > >> the opinion of Professor Sipser. > >> > >> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz > > > > Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is > > sound using facts and logic in your own words. > > > > /Flibble > > > > I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified > expert in the field is inductively sound. No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the authority is. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 12:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9hne$1rb71$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58468 |
On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>> >>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>> >>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>> >>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>> >>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>> >>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified >> expert in the field is inductively sound. > > No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the > authority is. > > /Flibble > That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeon. If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be proof that am correct. If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same single point of agreement. -- 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 | "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4dcca19c-3697-4731-b273-297f52cd3ed1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #58469 |
On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 1:26:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 > > olcott <non...@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 > >>> olcott <non...@beez-waxes.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> 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? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal > >>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often > >>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain > >>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong > >>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied > >>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: > >>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert > >>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority > >>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as > >>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? > >>>>>> > >>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is > >>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as > >>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. > >>>> > >>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz > >>> > >>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is > >>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> > >> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified > >> expert in the field is inductively sound. > > > > No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the > > authority is. > > > > /Flibble > > > That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery is > just as good as going to a brain surgeon. > ...I think I now understand Peter Olcott better. Perhaps he is a paid-off high-ranking member of the "f*** Philip White club," and this is all a costly signal from some well-monied person that I am not to be helped, liked or appreciated? Whatever. A lot of my enemies have very dumb tactics that waste resources and do nothing beyond that. -Philip White (philipwhite363@gmail.com) > If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be proof > that am correct. > > If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed with > me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. > > That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough > credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same single > point of agreement. > -- > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; > Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 19:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <RR02L.97675$chF5.75991@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #58469 |
On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>> >>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>> >>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>> >>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>> >>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified >>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >> >> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the >> authority is. >> >> /Flibble >> > > That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery is > just as good as going to a brain surgeo I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. > > If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be proof > that am correct. Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is actually corret. > > If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed with > me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. > > That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough > credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same single > point of agreement. > Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have. They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support. The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t understand what a correct simulation is. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 18:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tia6k7$1svjk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58507 |
On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>> >>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>>> >>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>> >>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified >>>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >>> >>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the >>> authority is. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery is >> just as good as going to a brain surgeo > > I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. > > So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. > >> >> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be >> proof that am correct. > > Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is > actually corret. > >> >> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed >> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. > > Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said > they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. > >> >> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough >> credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same single >> point of agreement. >> > > Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the > errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have. > All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider. *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he > doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown to > be wrong, and don't actually have support. > I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that. > The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t > understand what a correct simulation is. > > FAIL. A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to. This nuance has been our key sticking point. Another reviewer on another forum was shocked that anyone ever disagreed with the obvious tautology. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 20:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Av22L.576818$Ny99.277692@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #58512 |
On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>>>> >>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified >>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >>>> >>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the >>>> authority is. >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>>> >>> >>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery is >>> just as good as going to a brain surgeo >> >> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. >> >> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. >> >>> >>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be >>> proof that am correct. >> >> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is >> actually corret. >> >>> >>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed >>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. >> >> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said >> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. >> >>> >>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough >>> credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same single >>> point of agreement. >>> >> >> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the >> errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have. >> > > All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one accepts > the notion of a simulating halt decider. > > *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* > If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation > of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it > would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report > that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt. Yours doesn't do this. > >> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he >> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown to >> be wrong, and don't actually have support. >> > > I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his > agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that. You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your final conclusion? Yes, put that note in. > >> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t >> understand what a correct simulation is. >> >> FAIL. > > A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to. > This nuance has been our key sticking point. And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the actual behavior of the direct execution of D. THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation. H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation. PERIOD. > > Another reviewer on another forum was shocked that anyone ever disagreed > with the obvious tautology. > Because you are pointing out the point that they are missing, which is because the error is actually that you have the wrong defintion of a corrct simuation, so it doesn't show in that statement, only when you apply it. Since your arguement isn't actually based on a correct simulation, that statement doesn't actually apply. Remember, for a Turing machine, the only defintion of a correct simulation includes that it is complete, there is no such thing as a correct partial simulation. So, you logic still is wrong. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 20:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tiad4a$1kgg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58514 |
On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified >>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >>>>> >>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the >>>>> authority is. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery >>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo >>> >>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. >>> >>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. >>> >>>> >>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be >>>> proof that am correct. >>> >>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is >>> actually corret. >>> >>>> >>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed >>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. >>> >>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said >>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. >>> >>>> >>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough >>>> credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same >>>> single point of agreement. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the >>> errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have. >>> >> >> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one >> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider. >> >> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some > different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the > CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt. > > Yours doesn't do this. > >> >>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he >>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown >>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support. >>> >> >> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his >> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that. > > You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your final > conclusion? > > Yes, put that note in. > >> >>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t >>> understand what a correct simulation is. >>> >>> FAIL. >> >> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to. >> This nuance has been our key sticking point. > > And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the > actual behavior of the direct execution of D. This is proven to be false once every detail is completely specified such that false assumptions are made impossible. Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version. (a) x86utm operating system (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 21:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <yl32L.251556$51Rb.220592@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #58515 |
On 10/13/22 9:13 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified >>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the >>>>>> authority is. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery >>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo >>>> >>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. >>>> >>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be >>>>> proof that am correct. >>>> >>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is >>>> actually corret. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed >>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. >>>> >>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said >>>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is >>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this >>>>> same single point of agreement. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see >>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like >>>> we have. >>>> >>> >>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one >>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider. >>> >>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some >> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the >> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt. >> >> Yours doesn't do this. >> >>> >>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he >>>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown >>>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support. >>>> >>> >>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his >>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that. >> >> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your >> final conclusion? >> >> Yes, put that note in. >> >>> >>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t >>>> understand what a correct simulation is. >>>> >>>> FAIL. >>> >>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to. >>> This nuance has been our key sticking point. >> >> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the >> actual behavior of the direct execution of D. > > This is proven to be false once every detail is completely specified > such that false assumptions are made impossible. > WRONG. A sample program can't change a definition. You are just showing your stupidity. > Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version. > (a) x86utm operating system > (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows > (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c > https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip > And this program shows that P(P) or D() will Halt and H(P,P) / H(D) will say they don't, so shows that H is WRONG. Thus showing even more your stupidity. YOU FAIL. You just don't know what the words mean, and so are blathering falsehoods.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 20:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tiadf9$1teeq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58514 |
On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified >>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >>>>> >>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the >>>>> authority is. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery >>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo >>> >>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. >>> >>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. >>> >>>> >>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be >>>> proof that am correct. >>> >>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is >>> actually corret. >>> >>>> >>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed >>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. >>> >>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said >>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. >>> >>>> >>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough >>>> credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same >>>> single point of agreement. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the >>> errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have. >>> >> >> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one >> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider. >> >> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some > different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the > CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt. > > Yours doesn't do this. > >> >>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he >>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown >>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support. >>> >> >> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his >> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that. > > You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your final > conclusion? > > Yes, put that note in. > >> >>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t >>> understand what a correct simulation is. >>> >>> FAIL. >> >> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to. >> This nuance has been our key sticking point. > > And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the > actual behavior of the direct execution of D. > > THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation. > > H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation. > PERIOD. *When you deny this you deny a tautology* When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D specifies then we know that the simulation is correct. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 03:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tiaetj$20c1p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58516 |
Le 14/10/2022 à 03:19, olcott a écrit : > On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified >>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the >>>>>> authority is. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery >>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo >>>> >>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. >>>> >>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be >>>>> proof that am correct. >>>> >>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is >>>> actually corret. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed >>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. >>>> >>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said >>>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is >>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this >>>>> same single point of agreement. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see >>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like >>>> we have. >>>> >>> >>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one >>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider. >>> >>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some >> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the >> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt. >> >> Yours doesn't do this. >> >>> >>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he >>>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown >>>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support. >>>> >>> >>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his >>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that. >> >> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your >> final conclusion? >> >> Yes, put that note in. >> >>> >>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t >>>> understand what a correct simulation is. >>>> >>>> FAIL. >>> >>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to. >>> This nuance has been our key sticking point. >> >> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the >> actual behavior of the direct execution of D. >> >> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation. >> >> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation. >> PERIOD. > > *When you deny this you deny a tautology* > When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly > matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D > specifies then we know that the simulation is correct. 1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt 2. P(P) does halt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 21:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo !!! |
| Message-ID | <tiag8c$1teeq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58517 |
On 10/13/2022 8:44 PM, Python wrote: > Le 14/10/2022 à 03:19, olcott a écrit : >> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as >>>>>>>>>>>> good as >>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a >>>>>>>> qualified >>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the >>>>>>> authority is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery >>>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo >>>>> >>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. >>>>> >>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be >>>>>> proof that am correct. >>>>> >>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is >>>>> actually corret. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed >>>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. >>>>> >>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they >>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is >>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this >>>>>> same single point of agreement. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see >>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like >>>>> we have. >>>>> >>>> >>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one >>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider. >>>> >>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> >>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some >>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the >>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt. >>> >>> Yours doesn't do this. >>> >>>> >>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that >>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still >>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his >>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that. >>> >>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your >>> final conclusion? >>> >>> Yes, put that note in. >>> >>>> >>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t >>>>> understand what a correct simulation is. >>>>> >>>>> FAIL. >>>> >>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to. >>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point. >>> >>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the >>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D. >>> >>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation. >>> >>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation. >>> PERIOD. >> >> *When you deny this you deny a tautology* >> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly >> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D >> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct. > > 1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt > 2. P(P) does halt. It can be verified two different ways that H simulates D correctly and that D correctly simulated by H never stops running unless aborted. Bingo !!! -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 22:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider Bingo !!! |
| Message-ID | <lI32L.251557$51Rb.52215@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #58520 |
On 10/13/22 10:07 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 8:44 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 14/10/2022 à 03:19, olcott a écrit : >>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and >>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal >>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as >>>>>>>>>>>>> good as >>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a >>>>>>>>> qualified >>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> authority is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain >>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo >>>>>> >>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be >>>>>>> proof that am correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is >>>>>> actually corret. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field >>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they >>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is >>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this >>>>>>> same single point of agreement. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see >>>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just >>>>>> like we have. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one >>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider. >>>>> >>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>> >>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some >>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the >>>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt. >>>> >>>> Yours doesn't do this. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that >>>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still >>>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his >>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that. >>>> >>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your >>>> final conclusion? >>>> >>>> Yes, put that note in. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you >>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is. >>>>>> >>>>>> FAIL. >>>>> >>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to. >>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point. >>>> >>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the >>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D. >>>> >>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation. >>>> >>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation. >>>> PERIOD. >>> >>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology* >>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly >>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D >>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct. >> >> 1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt >> 2. P(P) does halt. > > It can be verified two different ways that H simulates D correctly and > that D correctly simulated by H never stops running unless aborted. > > Bingo !!! > > > Since by construction, D halts if H(D) returns 0, how can you verify the opposite. The problem is you just don't understand what you are talking about, and have put your logic into the land of inconsistency because you have injected false premsies into it and the principle of exposion says you can "prove" all sorts of incorrect statement. YOU FAIL. You are proving yourself to be an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 22:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Hp32L.762140$BKL8.754090@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #58516 |
On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500 >>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500 >>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal >>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often >>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain >>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong >>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied >>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include: >>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as >>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ??? >>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is >>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as >>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is >>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified >>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the >>>>>> authority is. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery >>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo >>>> >>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements. >>>> >>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be >>>>> proof that am correct. >>>> >>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is >>>> actually corret. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed >>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct. >>>> >>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said >>>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is >>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this >>>>> same single point of agreement. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see >>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like >>>> we have. >>>> >>> >>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one >>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider. >>> >>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider* >>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some >> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the >> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt. >> >> Yours doesn't do this. >> >>> >>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he >>>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown >>>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support. >>>> >>> >>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his >>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that. >> >> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your >> final conclusion? >> >> Yes, put that note in. >> >>> >>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t >>>> understand what a correct simulation is. >>>> >>>> FAIL. >>> >>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to. >>> This nuance has been our key sticking point. >> >> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the >> actual behavior of the direct execution of D. >> >> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation. >> >> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation. >> PERIOD. > > *When you deny this you deny a tautology* > When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly > matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D > specifies then we know that the simulation is correct. > > No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word. A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input. SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps. THEN You H goes off and makes an INCORRECT operation assuming that H(D) won't return while we see that H(D) does return 0, so it makes an INCORRECT simulation of that step. You just are forgetting that code of H is part of the program D, apparently because you don't understand that you are working on "Programs" and not just C-Functions which don't actually map to anything in computation theory. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 21:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tiagg5$1teeq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58519 |
On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is
>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery
>>>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>
>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>>>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like
>>>>> we have.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>
>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that
>>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still
>>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>
>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>> final conclusion?
>>>
>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
>>>>> understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>
>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>
>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>
>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>> PERIOD.
>>
>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>
>>
>
> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>
> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of the
> input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>
> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared to
the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
int D(ptr2 M)
{
if ( H(M, M) )
return 0;
return 1;
}
int main()
{
Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
}
H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its correct
simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely recursive
simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
(a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
(b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
(c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
simulation of D and returns 0.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 22:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <wO32L.403831$wLZ8.79060@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #58522 |
On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Prove your argument is
>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just
>>>>>> like we have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>>>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>
>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that
>>>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still
>>>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>>
>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>>> final conclusion?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>
>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>
>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>
>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>> PERIOD.
>>>
>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>>
>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of
>> the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>
>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>
> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared to
> the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>
> int D(ptr2 M)
> {
> if ( H(M, M) )
> return 0;
> return 1;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
> }
>
> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its correct
> simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely recursive
> simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>
> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
> simulation of D and returns 0.
>
Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
(a) D calls H
(b) That simuates D with an x86 emulator.
(c) That is simulate to the point where the simulate D calls H(D,D)
(d) the H started in (a) and working in (b) aborts its simulation and
returns 0
(e) THe D started in (a) then Halts.
The problem is that at the point of (c) H is deciding to abort its
simulation based on the INCORRECT presumption that the H(D,D) it is
simulating is not going to ever return.
It is WRONG, as are YOU.
YOU FAIL.
If H ever aborts its simulation, it does so just slightly before the
input is it simulating will do the same thing, make its decision that it
simulation is non-halting incorrect.
You logic fails to take this in to account.
You have NEVER pointed out the actual logical error in this rebuttal, so
until you do, you are by default accepting that it is pointing out a
FATAL error in your logic.
YOU FAIL.
You have killed your reputation under the pile of FALSEHOOD you have given.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web