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 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 09:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti97nq$1qfdf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58460 |
On 10/13/2022 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 10/12/22 11:51 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/12/2022 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/12/22 10:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>> >>>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>> >>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>> >>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in >>>>>> this paper. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>> >>>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>> >>>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >>>>> proof? >>>> >>>> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to >>>> share a >>>> private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as >>>> you would expect. >>>> >>> >>> So I don't need to drop by campus and talk to him? >> >> >> Go ahead and talk to him, get him to spend 15 minutes on my 1.5 page >> paper. He can skip page 2. The only thing they he does not quite fully >> understand is the recursive simulation that I demonstrate on page 1. >> >> The first half of page 1 is simply my quotes of his words. He only >> really needs to focus on the bottom half of page 1. >> >> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >> >> > > No, I do't need to talk to him to try to "convince" him of something > that is incorrect. > *Professor Sipser has agreed with this* 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. Thus negating your only objection. -- 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 | 2022-10-13 17:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ti9cbt$1qsg3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58462 |
Peter Olcott, demented crank, wrote: .. > *Professor Sipser has agreed with this* > 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. sigh... he correctly agreed with a tautology "if it *correctly* determine whatever then it would be correct to report it". He did so to get rid of the annoying crank you are. He should have guessed that your will use this dishonestly. This cannot support your idiotic claim that H reporting P to be non-halting while it is obvious that P is halting, from its very definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9ebp$1bu6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58463 |
On 10/13/2022 10:54 AM, Python wrote: > Peter Olcott, demented crank, wrote: > .. >> *Professor Sipser has agreed with this* >> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it >> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report >> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > sigh... he correctly agreed with a tautology "if it *correctly* > determine whatever then it would be correct to report it". > > He did so to get rid of the annoying crank you are. He should > have guessed that your will use this dishonestly. > > This cannot support your idiotic claim that H reporting P > to be non-halting while it is obvious that P is halting, > from its very definition. Professor Sipser agreed that the behavior of the input D correctly simulated by H is the correct behavior to measure. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 19:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <%X02L.420944$SAT4.408718@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #58466 |
On 10/13/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 10:54 AM, Python wrote: >> Peter Olcott, demented crank, wrote: >> .. >>> *Professor Sipser has agreed with this* >>> 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. >> >> sigh... he correctly agreed with a tautology "if it *correctly* >> determine whatever then it would be correct to report it". >> >> He did so to get rid of the annoying crank you are. He should >> have guessed that your will use this dishonestly. >> >> This cannot support your idiotic claim that H reporting P >> to be non-halting while it is obvious that P is halting, >> from its very definition. > > Professor Sipser agreed that the behavior of the input D correctly > simulated by H is the correct behavior to measure. > Presumably based on H actually doing a correct simulation of D. Since H doesn't, and it looks a a correct simulation of a DIFFERENT input, the statement doesn't hold. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 19:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eW02L.420943$SAT4.352558@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #58462 |
On 10/13/22 10:35 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> On 10/12/22 11:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/12/2022 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/12/22 10:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in >>>>>>> this paper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof >>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>>>>> presented to him. >>>>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting >>>>>> problem >>>>>> proof? >>>>> >>>>> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to >>>>> share a >>>>> private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as >>>>> you would expect. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So I don't need to drop by campus and talk to him? >>> >>> >>> Go ahead and talk to him, get him to spend 15 minutes on my 1.5 page >>> paper. He can skip page 2. The only thing they he does not quite >>> fully understand is the recursive simulation that I demonstrate on >>> page 1. >>> >>> The first half of page 1 is simply my quotes of his words. He only >>> really needs to focus on the bottom half of page 1. >>> >>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>> >>> >>> >> >> No, I do't need to talk to him to try to "convince" him of something >> that is incorrect. >> > > *Professor Sipser has agreed with this* > 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. > > Thus negating your only objection. > And sincd H doesn't DO a correct simulation, as the term is commonly known, the statement doesn't apply. Since H doesn't actually correctly determine that teh correct simulation of its input would never stop, the statement doesn't apply. Your H has determined that a DIFFERENT H, making a DIFFERENT D can be shown to ot halt, so it is only via invlid logic that you are applyig the statment. He likely missed that you said "Its" instead of "the", or he was presuming the normal usage of this phase, which means that if THIS INSTANCE (and ONLY this instance) was changed to not abort, then the results are shown, note, this SPECIFICALLY means that the copy of H that D calls is not change to not abort. You are just using wrong definitions and showing your stupidity. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 12:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h708j720.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #58453 |
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > On 10/12/22 10:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >>> proof? >> >> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to share a >> private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as >> you would expect. > > So I don't need to drop by campus and talk to him? I don't think you /need/ to and, if it were me, I'd worry that this has already taken up more of his time than he'd want. But if you think it's worthwhile... -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-12 22:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti80ni$14b3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58450 |
On 10/12/2022 9:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>> looks correct: >>> >>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>> Here is what I would like to say: >>> >>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>> looks correct: >>> >>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>> >>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in >>> this paper. >>> >>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>> >>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>> presented to him. >>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>> >>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>> >>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>> >>> Yes. >> >> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >> proof? > No. > I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to share a > private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as > you would expect. > You confirmed that he talked to me that is good. He gave me his permission to quote him. Since he validated the most important aspect of my proof without examining any of the other details I am sure that he must still believe that I am incorrect about my HP rebuttal. That is OK he has > 250 students. That he validated the most essential aspect of my proof gives me a key threshold of credibility. *A paraphrase of the words that he agreed to* 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 aborts its simulation of D and correctly reports that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 11:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ti9hs6$1r9c6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58450 |
On 10/12/2022 8:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>> looks correct: >>> >>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>> Here is what I would like to say: >>> >>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>> looks correct: >>> >>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>> >>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in >>> this paper. >>> >>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>> >>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>> presented to him. >>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>> >>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>> >>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>> >>> Yes. >> >> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >> proof? > > I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to share a > private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as > you would expect. Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my copy to check it out. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 12:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9iiq$1rb71$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58470 |
On 10/13/2022 12:28 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > On 10/12/2022 8:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>> looks correct: >>>> >>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>> >>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>> looks correct: >>>> >>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>> >>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in >>>> this paper. >>>> >>>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>> >>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper >>>> presented to him. >>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>> >>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>> >>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem >>> proof? >> >> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to share a >> private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as >> you would expect. > Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's > mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my > copy to check it out. Professor Sipser specifically approved this precise verbiage as the abstract to my paper, linked below: <Sipser approved abstract> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper): If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. </Sipser approved abstract> to this paper: *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 | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 18:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20221013184356.000071b1@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #58471 |
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 12:40:41 -0500 olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2022 12:28 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > > On 10/12/2022 8:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim > >>>>>> paragraph looks correct: > >>>> > >>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> > >>>> Here is what I would like to say: > >>>> > >>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph > >>>> looks correct: > >>>> > >>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation > >>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be > >>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D > >>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? > >>>> > >>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced > >>>> in this paper. > >>>> > >>>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof > >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof > >>>> > >>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this > >>>> paper presented to him. > >>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> > >>>> > >>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> > >>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. > >>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> > >>>> > >>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? > >>>> > >>>> Yes. > >>> > >>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting > >>> problem proof? > >> > >> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to > >> share a private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went > >> exactly as you would expect. > > Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank > > one's mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? > > Can't find my copy to check it out. > > Professor Sipser specifically approved this precise verbiage as the > abstract to my paper, linked below: > > <Sipser approved abstract> > MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim > paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this > paper): > > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H > correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running > unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly > report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > </Sipser approved abstract> > > to this paper: > > *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof That is all fine and dandy but it seems I need to remind you again that your Olcott Simulation Detector does not correctly simulate all inputs and as a result does not give a correct halting decision for all inputs. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 12:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9j83$1rb71$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58473 |
On 10/13/2022 12:43 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 12:40:41 -0500
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/2022 12:28 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 8:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>>>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>>>> looks correct:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced
>>>>>> in this paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this
>>>>>> paper presented to him.
>>>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>>>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting
>>>>> problem proof?
>>>>
>>>> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to
>>>> share a private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went
>>>> exactly as you would expect.
>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank
>>> one's mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"?
>>> Can't find my copy to check it out.
>>
>> Professor Sipser specifically approved this precise verbiage as the
>> abstract to my paper, linked below:
>>
>> <Sipser approved abstract>
>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
>> paper):
>>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </Sipser approved abstract>
>>
>> to this paper:
>>
>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>
> That is all fine and dandy but it seems I need to remind you again that
> your Olcott Simulation Detector does not correctly simulate all inputs
> and as a result does not give a correct halting decision for all inputs.
>
> /Flibble
>
Strawman error.
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem
of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
program and an input, whether the program will finish running,
or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
program-input pairs cannot exist.
For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Refuting the above and all of the conventional HP proofs only requires
an H that correctly handles that case.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 20:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ti9k8l$1rhuv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58475 |
Peter Olcott, demented bigot and crank wrote: > On 10/13/2022 12:43 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 12:40:41 -0500 >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/13/2022 12:28 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2022 8:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>> in this paper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof >>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>> paper presented to him. >>>>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting >>>>>> problem proof? >>>>> >>>>> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to >>>>> share a private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went >>>>> exactly as you would expect. >>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank >>>> one's mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? >>>> Can't find my copy to check it out. >>> >>> Professor Sipser specifically approved this precise verbiage as the >>> abstract to my paper, linked below: >>> >>> <Sipser approved abstract> >>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim >>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this >>> paper): >>> >>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>> </Sipser approved abstract> >>> >>> to this paper: >>> >>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >> >> That is all fine and dandy but it seems I need to remind you again that >> your Olcott Simulation Detector does not correctly simulate all inputs >> and as a result does not give a correct halting decision for all inputs. >> >> /Flibble >> > > Strawman error. > > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem > of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer > program and an input, whether the program will finish running, > or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a > general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible > program-input pairs cannot exist. > > For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a > "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own > source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of > what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case* > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > Refuting the above and all of the conventional HP proofs only requires > an H that correctly handles that case. And your H fail to report correctly the behavior of P. Even you admit so. FAIL. How can you be that stupid Peter ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 13:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9lkq$1rlq0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58476 |
On 10/13/2022 1:09 PM, Python wrote: > Peter Olcott, demented bigot and crank wrote: >> On 10/13/2022 12:43 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 12:40:41 -0500 >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/13/2022 12:28 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2022 8:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim >>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>>> Here is what I would like to say: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph >>>>>>>> looks correct: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be >>>>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced >>>>>>>> in this paper. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this >>>>>>>> paper presented to him. >>>>>>>> </quoted email to professor Sipser> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking. >>>>>>>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser> >>>>>>>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting >>>>>>> problem proof? >>>>>> >>>>>> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing. I don't want to >>>>>> share a private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went >>>>>> exactly as you would expect. >>>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank >>>>> one's mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? >>>>> Can't find my copy to check it out. >>>> >>>> Professor Sipser specifically approved this precise verbiage as the >>>> abstract to my paper, linked below: >>>> >>>> <Sipser approved abstract> >>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim >>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this >>>> paper): >>>> >>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>> </Sipser approved abstract> >>>> >>>> to this paper: >>>> >>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>> >>> That is all fine and dandy but it seems I need to remind you again that >>> your Olcott Simulation Detector does not correctly simulate all inputs >>> and as a result does not give a correct halting decision for all inputs. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> Strawman error. >> >> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem >> of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer >> program and an input, whether the program will finish running, >> or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a >> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible >> program-input pairs cannot exist. >> >> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a >> "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own >> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of >> what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case* >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >> >> Refuting the above and all of the conventional HP proofs only requires >> an H that correctly handles that case. > > And your H fail to report correctly the behavior of P. Even you admit > so. FAIL. > > How can you be that stupid Peter ? > My H does report on the basis that Professor Sipser has agreed to. If you have not yet noticed this then perhaps you only care about rebuttal and do not care about an honest dialogue? -- 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 | 2022-10-13 20:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ti9loi$1rhuv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58478 |
Lying sinner Peter Olcott wrote: .. >> And your H fail to report correctly the behavior of P. Even you admit >> so. FAIL. >> >> How can you be that stupid Peter ? >> > > My H does report on the basis that Professor Sipser has agreed to. If > you have not yet noticed this then perhaps you only care about rebuttal > and do not care about an honest dialogue? > Your H reports P to be non-halting. P halts. Pr Sipser never agreed that such an H could be a valid halt decider. Stop lying Peter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9mco$1b5h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58479 |
On 10/13/2022 1:34 PM, Python wrote: > Lying sinner Peter Olcott wrote: > .. >>> And your H fail to report correctly the behavior of P. Even you admit >>> so. FAIL. >>> >>> How can you be that stupid Peter ? >>> >> >> My H does report on the basis that Professor Sipser has agreed to. If >> you have not yet noticed this then perhaps you only care about >> rebuttal and do not care about an honest dialogue? >> > > Your H reports P to be non-halting. P halts. Pr Sipser never agreed that > such an H could be a valid halt decider. Stop lying Peter. My simulating halt decider H correctly reports that its correct simulation of D must be aborted or the simulated D would never stop running. *This is verified on the basis of software engineering* *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words (and no more)* If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 20:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ti9mn2$1rhuv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58482 |
Lying sinner Pter Olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 1:34 PM, Python wrote: >> Lying sinner Peter Olcott wrote: >> .. >>>> And your H fail to report correctly the behavior of P. Even you admit >>>> so. FAIL. >>>> >>>> How can you be that stupid Peter ? >>>> >>> >>> My H does report on the basis that Professor Sipser has agreed to. If >>> you have not yet noticed this then perhaps you only care about >>> rebuttal and do not care about an honest dialogue? >>> >> >> Your H reports P to be non-halting. P halts. Pr Sipser never agreed that >> such an H could be a valid halt decider. Stop lying Peter. > My simulating halt decider H correctly reports that its correct > simulation of D must be aborted or the simulated D would never stop > running. *This is verified on the basis of software engineering* > > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words (and no more)* > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H > correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running > unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report > that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. Which is a void tautology "if it is correct then it is correct"... He just wanted to get rid of you, troll and crank. And still: Your H reports P to be non-halting. P halts. Pr Sipser never agreed that such an H could be a valid halt decider. Stop lying Peter. You'll burn in Hell, according to your own rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 13:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9mu8$1rlq0$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58484 |
On 10/13/2022 1:51 PM, Python wrote: > Lying sinner Pter Olcott wrote: >> On 10/13/2022 1:34 PM, Python wrote: >>> Lying sinner Peter Olcott wrote: >>> .. >>>>> And your H fail to report correctly the behavior of P. Even you admit >>>>> so. FAIL. >>>>> >>>>> How can you be that stupid Peter ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> My H does report on the basis that Professor Sipser has agreed to. >>>> If you have not yet noticed this then perhaps you only care about >>>> rebuttal and do not care about an honest dialogue? >>>> >>> >>> Your H reports P to be non-halting. P halts. Pr Sipser never agreed that >>> such an H could be a valid halt decider. Stop lying Peter. >> My simulating halt decider H correctly reports that its correct >> simulation of D must be aborted or the simulated D would never stop >> running. *This is verified on the basis of software engineering* >> >> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words (and no more)* >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > Which is a void tautology "if it is correct then it is correct"... > He just wanted to get rid of you, troll and crank. > > And still: > > Your H reports P to be non-halting. P halts. P does not halt when we apply the Sipser approved criteria. You are not applying the Sipser approved criteria. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 20:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ti9n3r$1rhuv$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58487 |
Disgusting liar, Peter Olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 1:51 PM, Python wrote: .. >> And still: >> >> Your H reports P to be non-halting. P halts. > > P does not halt when we apply the Sipser approved criteria. This is utterly asinine, Sipser "approved criteria" is something you've made up, moreover using his name. You should feel ASHAMED Peter. P(P) halts, PERIOD. You are quite a disgusting kind of person Peter, you know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 14:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9ndf$1q4v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58489 |
On 10/13/2022 1:58 PM, Python wrote: > Disgusting liar, Peter Olcott wrote: >> On 10/13/2022 1:51 PM, Python wrote: > .. >>> And still: >>> >>> Your H reports P to be non-halting. P halts. >> >> P does not halt when we apply the Sipser approved criteria. > > This is utterly asinine, Sipser "approved criteria" is something > you've made up, moreover using his name. You should feel ASHAMED > Peter. > > P(P) halts, PERIOD. *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. Thus H does not care about anything besides the behavior of its input when this input is correctly simulated by H. -- 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 | 2022-10-13 21:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ti9nj7$1rhuv$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58490 |
Disgusting liar, Peter Olcott wrote: > On 10/13/2022 1:58 PM, Python wrote: >> Disgusting liar, Peter Olcott wrote: >>> On 10/13/2022 1:51 PM, Python wrote: >> .. >>>> And still: >>>> >>>> Your H reports P to be non-halting. P halts. >>> >>> P does not halt when we apply the Sipser approved criteria. >> >> This is utterly asinine, Sipser "approved criteria" is something >> you've made up, moreover using his name. You should feel ASHAMED >> Peter. >> >> P(P) halts, PERIOD. > > *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H > correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running > unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report > that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > Thus H does not care about anything besides the behavior of its input > when this input is correctly simulated by H. > So your H incorrectly simulates P, this is what you are saying? You make less and less sense every single day Peter... Anyway, still H reports incorrectly that P is non halting while P halts. Your H is still wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web