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 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-13 14:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ti9o1r$1rlq0$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58491 |
On 10/13/2022 2:06 PM, Python wrote: > 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... > That H correctly simulates its input can be easily verified by every sufficiently competent software engineer: It is verified that the line-by-line execution trace of P produced by H exactly matches what the line-by-line x86 source-code of P specifies. > Anyway, still H reports incorrectly that P is non halting while > P halts. Your H is still wrong. No according to the Sipser approved criteria. That you ignore this is an indication of bias thus less than no rebuttal at all. -- 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 23:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <tiaqoe$214pm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58471 |
On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 From what you say above, we see that you are making the same mistake with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed that your abstract correctly describes your paper but does not say that the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is correct. This is the same sort of brain fart you have when the H (your ridiculous decider) is not the same on the outside and when it's called by P. At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he actually thought you had a break through on a major result, he would have guided you into and through the paper prep, submission, and review process. He would, at a minimum, invite you to give a talk at an MIT seminar next time you were in town. And he would introduce you around to many of your colleagues to be. None of those things happened. Just thank him for being gracious and move on to another problem while you still have time. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 00:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tias2n$218r6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58532 |
On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 > > From what you say above, we see that you are making the same mistake > with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your nonfunctional > approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed that your abstract > correctly describes your paper but does not say that the reasoning in > the abstract (or paper) is correct. This is the same sort of brain fart > you have when the H (your ridiculous decider) is not the same on the > outside and when it's called by P. > > At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim >> paragraph is correct >> >> 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. This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. > in double > talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he actually thought you had > a break through on a major result, he would have guided you into and > through the paper prep, submission, and review process. He would, at a > minimum, invite you to give a talk at an MIT seminar next time you were > in town. And he would introduce you around to many of your colleagues to > be. None of those things happened. Just thank him for being gracious and > move on to another problem while you still have time. He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This was not enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 08:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Yjc2L.547242$6Il8.517358@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #58533 |
On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 >>> >> >> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same mistake >> with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your nonfunctional >> approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed that your abstract >> correctly describes your paper but does not say that the reasoning in >> the abstract (or paper) is correct. This is the same sort of brain >> fart you have when the H (your ridiculous decider) is not the same on >> the outside and when it's called by P. >> >> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback > > > >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim > >> paragraph is correct > >> > >> 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. > > This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. > >> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he actually >> thought you had a break through on a major result, he would have >> guided you into and through the paper prep, submission, and review >> process. He would, at a minimum, invite you to give a talk at an MIT >> seminar next time you were in town. And he would introduce you around >> to many of your colleagues to be. None of those things happened. Just >> thank him for being gracious and move on to another problem while you >> still have time. > > He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This was not > enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. > > *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof > > I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your argument are visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tibr7n$r5g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58537 |
On 10/14/2022 7:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 >>> >>> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same mistake >>> with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your >>> nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed that >>> your abstract correctly describes your paper but does not say that >>> the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is correct. This is the same >>> sort of brain fart you have when the H (your ridiculous decider) is >>> not the same on the outside and when it's called by P. >>> >>> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback >> >> >> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim >> >> paragraph is correct >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. >> >>> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he actually >>> thought you had a break through on a major result, he would have >>> guided you into and through the paper prep, submission, and review >>> process. He would, at a minimum, invite you to give a talk at an MIT >>> seminar next time you were in town. And he would introduce you around >>> to many of your colleagues to be. None of those things happened. Just >>> thank him for being gracious and move on to another problem while you >>> still have time. >> >> He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This was not >> enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. >> >> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >> > > I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your argument are > visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself. My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider *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. and my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. -- 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 16:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tibs91$25dit$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58541 |
Le 14/10/2022 à 16:20, olcott a écrit : > On 10/14/2022 7:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 >>>> >>>> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same >>>> mistake with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your >>>> nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed that >>>> your abstract correctly describes your paper but does not say that >>>> the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is correct. This is the >>>> same sort of brain fart you have when the H (your ridiculous >>>> decider) is not the same on the outside and when it's called by P. >>>> >>>> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback >>> >>> >>> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim >>> >> paragraph is correct >>> >> >>> >> 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. >>> >>> This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. >>> >>>> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he actually >>>> thought you had a break through on a major result, he would have >>>> guided you into and through the paper prep, submission, and review >>>> process. He would, at a minimum, invite you to give a talk at an MIT >>>> seminar next time you were in town. And he would introduce you >>>> around to many of your colleagues to be. None of those things >>>> happened. Just thank him for being gracious and move on to another >>>> problem while you still have time. >>> >>> He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This was not >>> enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. >>> >>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>> >> >> I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your argument are >> visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself. > > My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider > > *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. > > and my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop > running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of > this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. Pr. Sipser said nothing more than if the determination is correct then it is correct. He didn't say the the determination your H does is correct. Your code proves that D "correctly simulated" would never stop. Actually, when run, D stops. So we know that the determination made by H is incorrect. Labeling it as "correct" does not change that fact. Just like when you write "I'm not lying", you prove nothing. Especially because we KNOW you're lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 10:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tibvnb$t6j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58543 |
On 10/14/2022 9:38 AM, Python wrote: > Le 14/10/2022 à 16:20, olcott a écrit : >> On 10/14/2022 7:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 >>>>> >>>>> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same >>>>> mistake with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your >>>>> nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed that >>>>> your abstract correctly describes your paper but does not say that >>>>> the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is correct. This is the >>>>> same sort of brain fart you have when the H (your ridiculous >>>>> decider) is not the same on the outside and when it's called by P. >>>>> >>>>> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback >>>> >>>> >>>> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim >>>> >> paragraph is correct >>>> >> >>>> >> 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. >>>> >>>> This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. >>>> >>>>> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he actually >>>>> thought you had a break through on a major result, he would have >>>>> guided you into and through the paper prep, submission, and review >>>>> process. He would, at a minimum, invite you to give a talk at an >>>>> MIT seminar next time you were in town. And he would introduce you >>>>> around to many of your colleagues to be. None of those things >>>>> happened. Just thank him for being gracious and move on to another >>>>> problem while you still have time. >>>> >>>> He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This was not >>>> enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. >>>> >>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>> >>> >>> I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your argument >>> are visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself. >> >> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >> >> *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. >> >> and my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop >> running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of >> this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. > > > > Pr. Sipser said nothing more than if the determination is correct > then it is correct. He didn't say the the determination your H > does is correct. > That is what someone would say that only glances at my words to form a superficial baseless rebuttal. The key agreement is that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H is the correct behavior to measure. This overturns the last sticking point of every rebuttal of my proof in the last two years. > Your code proves that D "correctly simulated" would never stop. > Actually, when run, D stops. > The directly executed D stops running yet this is the wrong D. That the D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless its simulation is aborted meets the Sipser approved criteria: *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 | 2022-10-14 17:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tic06g$25uem$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58544 |
Le 14/10/2022 à 17:37, olcott a écrit : > On 10/14/2022 9:38 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 14/10/2022 à 16:20, olcott a écrit : >>> On 10/14/2022 7:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same >>>>>> mistake with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your >>>>>> nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed >>>>>> that your abstract correctly describes your paper but does not say >>>>>> that the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is correct. This is >>>>>> the same sort of brain fart you have when the H (your ridiculous >>>>>> decider) is not the same on the outside and when it's called by P. >>>>>> >>>>>> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following >>>>> verbatim >>>>> >> paragraph is correct >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. >>>>> >>>>>> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he actually >>>>>> thought you had a break through on a major result, he would have >>>>>> guided you into and through the paper prep, submission, and review >>>>>> process. He would, at a minimum, invite you to give a talk at an >>>>>> MIT seminar next time you were in town. And he would introduce you >>>>>> around to many of your colleagues to be. None of those things >>>>>> happened. Just thank him for being gracious and move on to another >>>>>> problem while you still have time. >>>>> >>>>> He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This was >>>>> not >>>>> enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. >>>>> >>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your argument >>>> are visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself. >>> >>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >>> >>> *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. >>> >>> and my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop >>> running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of >>> this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. >> >> >> >> Pr. Sipser said nothing more than if the determination is correct >> then it is correct. He didn't say the the determination your H >> does is correct. >> > > That is what someone would say that only glances at my words to form a > superficial baseless rebuttal. > > The key agreement is that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H is > the correct behavior to measure. This overturns the last sticking point > of every rebuttal of my proof in the last two years. > >> Your code proves that D "correctly simulated" would never stop. >> Actually, when run, D stops. >> > > The directly executed D stops running yet this is the wrong D. There is no "wrong D", there is D. PERIOD. > That the D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless its > simulation is aborted meets the Sipser approved criteria: So you pretend the simulation of the execution of a program is right while the direct execution is wrong in the case they differ. This is dementia, Peter. > *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. He said nothing more that "if it is correct, then it is correct". Your simulation is not correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 11:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tic12q$1ier$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58545 |
On 10/14/2022 10:45 AM, Python wrote: > Le 14/10/2022 à 17:37, olcott a écrit : >> On 10/14/2022 9:38 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 14/10/2022 à 16:20, olcott a écrit : >>>> On 10/14/2022 7:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same >>>>>>> mistake with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your >>>>>>> nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed >>>>>>> that your abstract correctly describes your paper but does not >>>>>>> say that the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is correct. >>>>>>> This is the same sort of brain fart you have when the H (your >>>>>>> ridiculous decider) is not the same on the outside and when it's >>>>>>> called by P. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following >>>>>> verbatim >>>>>> >> paragraph is correct >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. >>>>>> >>>>>>> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he >>>>>>> actually thought you had a break through on a major result, he >>>>>>> would have guided you into and through the paper prep, >>>>>>> submission, and review process. He would, at a minimum, invite >>>>>>> you to give a talk at an MIT seminar next time you were in town. >>>>>>> And he would introduce you around to many of your colleagues to >>>>>>> be. None of those things happened. Just thank him for being >>>>>>> gracious and move on to another problem while you still have time. >>>>>> >>>>>> He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This >>>>>> was not >>>>>> enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your argument >>>>> are visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself. >>>> >>>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >>>> >>>> *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. >>>> >>>> and my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop >>>> running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria >>>> of this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pr. Sipser said nothing more than if the determination is correct >>> then it is correct. He didn't say the the determination your H >>> does is correct. >>> >> >> That is what someone would say that only glances at my words to form a >> superficial baseless rebuttal. >> >> The key agreement is that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H >> is the correct behavior to measure. This overturns the last sticking >> point of every rebuttal of my proof in the last two years. >> >>> Your code proves that D "correctly simulated" would never stop. >>> Actually, when run, D stops. >>> >> >> The directly executed D stops running yet this is the wrong D. > > There is no "wrong D", there is D. PERIOD. > >> That the D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless >> its simulation is aborted meets the Sipser approved criteria: > > So you pretend the simulation of the execution of a program is right > while the direct execution is wrong in the case they differ. > > This is dementia, Peter. > >> *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. > > He said nothing more that "if it is correct, then it is correct". > > Your simulation is not correct. *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 18:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tic1g5$25uem$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58546 |
Le 14/10/2022 à 18:00, olcott a écrit : > On 10/14/2022 10:45 AM, Python wrote: >> Le 14/10/2022 à 17:37, olcott a écrit : >>> On 10/14/2022 9:38 AM, Python wrote: >>>> Le 14/10/2022 à 16:20, olcott a écrit : >>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same >>>>>>>> mistake with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your >>>>>>>> nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed >>>>>>>> that your abstract correctly describes your paper but does not >>>>>>>> say that the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is correct. >>>>>>>> This is the same sort of brain fart you have when the H (your >>>>>>>> ridiculous decider) is not the same on the outside and when it's >>>>>>>> called by P. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following >>>>>>> verbatim >>>>>>> >> paragraph is correct >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he >>>>>>>> actually thought you had a break through on a major result, he >>>>>>>> would have guided you into and through the paper prep, >>>>>>>> submission, and review process. He would, at a minimum, invite >>>>>>>> you to give a talk at an MIT seminar next time you were in town. >>>>>>>> And he would introduce you around to many of your colleagues to >>>>>>>> be. None of those things happened. Just thank him for being >>>>>>>> gracious and move on to another problem while you still have time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This >>>>>>> was not >>>>>>> enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your argument >>>>>> are visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself. >>>>> >>>>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider >>>>> >>>>> *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. >>>>> >>>>> and my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop >>>>> running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria >>>>> of this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Pr. Sipser said nothing more than if the determination is correct >>>> then it is correct. He didn't say the the determination your H >>>> does is correct. >>>> >>> >>> That is what someone would say that only glances at my words to form >>> a superficial baseless rebuttal. >>> >>> The key agreement is that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H >>> is the correct behavior to measure. This overturns the last sticking >>> point of every rebuttal of my proof in the last two years. >>> >>>> Your code proves that D "correctly simulated" would never stop. >>>> Actually, when run, D stops. >>>> >>> >>> The directly executed D stops running yet this is the wrong D. >> >> There is no "wrong D", there is D. PERIOD. >> >>> That the D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless >>> its simulation is aborted meets the Sipser approved criteria: >> >> So you pretend the simulation of the execution of a program is right >> while the direct execution is wrong in the case they differ. >> >> This is dementia, Peter. >> >>> *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. >> >> He said nothing more that "if it is correct, then it is correct". >> >> Your simulation is not correct. > > *When you deny this you deny a tautology* I don't deny the tautology "if it is correct then it correct", this is "A=>A", this doesn't state much interest here. I don't deny that if you modify the definition of "correct" to match your demented views, then you can pretend this is "correct". This is just idiotic. This is as silly as redefining "prime" as "odd", then pretend that all odd natural numbers are prime. Seriously what's wrong with you Peter? > 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. If one of them halts while the other doesn't, they cannot match. You are mentally ill, Peter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 11:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tic367$26ado$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58547 |
On 10/14/2022 11:07 AM, Python wrote:
> Le 14/10/2022 à 18:00, olcott a écrit :
>> On 10/14/2022 10:45 AM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 14/10/2022 à 17:37, olcott a écrit :
>>>> On 10/14/2022 9:38 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Le 14/10/2022 à 16:20, olcott a écrit :
>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same
>>>>>>>>> mistake with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing
>>>>>>>>> your nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has
>>>>>>>>> agreed that your abstract correctly describes your paper but
>>>>>>>>> does not say that the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is
>>>>>>>>> correct. This is the same sort of brain fart you have when the
>>>>>>>>> H (your ridiculous decider) is not the same on the outside and
>>>>>>>>> when it's called by P.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>> verbatim
>>>>>>>> >> paragraph is correct
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This fully validates the key most important element of my proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he
>>>>>>>>> actually thought you had a break through on a major result, he
>>>>>>>>> would have guided you into and through the paper prep,
>>>>>>>>> submission, and review process. He would, at a minimum, invite
>>>>>>>>> you to give a talk at an MIT seminar next time you were in
>>>>>>>>> town. And he would introduce you around to many of your
>>>>>>>>> colleagues to be. None of those things happened. Just thank him
>>>>>>>>> for being gracious and move on to another problem while you
>>>>>>>>> still have time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This
>>>>>>>> was not
>>>>>>>> enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of
>>>>>>>> page 1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your
>>>>>>> argument are visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting
>>>>>> criteria of this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this
>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pr. Sipser said nothing more than if the determination is correct
>>>>> then it is correct. He didn't say the the determination your H
>>>>> does is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is what someone would say that only glances at my words to form
>>>> a superficial baseless rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>> The key agreement is that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>> is the correct behavior to measure. This overturns the last sticking
>>>> point of every rebuttal of my proof in the last two years.
>>>>
>>>>> Your code proves that D "correctly simulated" would never stop.
>>>>> Actually, when run, D stops.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The directly executed D stops running yet this is the wrong D.
>>>
>>> There is no "wrong D", there is D. PERIOD.
>>>
>>>> That the D correctly simulated by H would never stop running unless
>>>> its simulation is aborted meets the Sipser approved criteria:
>>>
>>> So you pretend the simulation of the execution of a program is right
>>> while the direct execution is wrong in the case they differ.
>>>
>>> This is dementia, Peter.
>>>
>>>> *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.
>>>
>>> He said nothing more that "if it is correct, then it is correct".
>>>
>>> Your simulation is not correct.
>>
>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>
> I don't deny the tautology "if it is correct then it correct", this
> is "A=>A", this doesn't state much interest here.
>
> I don't deny that if you modify the definition of "correct" to match
> your demented views, then you can pretend this is "correct". This is
> just idiotic.
>
> This is as silly as redefining "prime" as "odd", then pretend that
> all odd natural numbers are prime.
>
> Seriously what's wrong with you Peter?
>
>> 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.
>
> If one of them halts while the other doesn't, they cannot match.
int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
{
if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
return 0;
return 1;
}
int main()
{
Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
}
_Sipser_D()
[000012ae] 55 push ebp
[000012af] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000012b1] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000012b4] 50 push eax
[000012b5] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000012b8] 51 push ecx
[000012b9] e880fdffff call 0000103e
[000012be] 83c408 add esp,+08
[000012c1] 85c0 test eax,eax
[000012c3] 7404 jz 000012c9
[000012c5] 33c0 xor eax,eax
[000012c7] eb05 jmp 000012ce
[000012c9] b801000000 mov eax,00000001
[000012ce] 5d pop ebp
[000012cf] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
[000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
[000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
[000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
The above line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of D by H is
proven to exactly match the behavior that the first seven lines of the
x86 source-code of D specifies.
It also proves that the x86 source-code of Sipser_D specifies that it
will continue to call Sipser_H in recursive simulation until the
executed Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
--
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 18:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tic45l$25uem$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58548 |
Lying demented Peter Olcott wrote:
..
> int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
> {
> if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
> return 0;
> return 1;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
> }
>
> _Sipser_D()
> [000012ae] 55 push ebp
> [000012af] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [000012b1] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000012b4] 50 push eax
> [000012b5] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000012b8] 51 push ecx
> [000012b9] e880fdffff call 0000103e
> [000012be] 83c408 add esp,+08
> [000012c1] 85c0 test eax,eax
> [000012c3] 7404 jz 000012c9
> [000012c5] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [000012c7] eb05 jmp 000012ce
> [000012c9] b801000000 mov eax,00000001
> [000012ce] 5d pop ebp
> [000012cf] c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
>
> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
> machine stack stack machine assembly
> address address data code language
> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> The above line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of D by H is
> proven to exactly match the behavior that the first seven lines of the
> x86 source-code of D specifies.
So they don't match past line 7. You was lying, as usual.
> It also proves that the x86 source-code of Sipser_D specifies that it
> will continue to call Sipser_H in recursive simulation until the
> executed Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
Obviously false concerning execution of Sipster_D.
Sipser_H is returning 0 so Sipser_D will halt.
You have a serious mental health issue, Peter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 18:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tic4h7$25uem$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58549 |
Le 14/10/2022 à 18:53, Python a écrit :
> Lying demented Peter Olcott wrote:
> ..
>> int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
>> {
>> if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
>> return 0;
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
>> }
>>
>> _Sipser_D()
>> [000012ae] 55 push ebp
>> [000012af] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000012b1] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b4] 50 push eax
>> [000012b5] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b8] 51 push ecx
>> [000012b9] e880fdffff call 0000103e
>> [000012be] 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [000012c1] 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [000012c3] 7404 jz 000012c9
>> [000012c5] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>> [000012c7] eb05 jmp 000012ce
>> [000012c9] b801000000 mov eax,00000001
>> [000012ce] 5d pop ebp
>> [000012cf] c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
>>
>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>> address address data code language
>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>
>> The above line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of D by H is
>> proven to exactly match the behavior that the first seven lines of the
>> x86 source-code of D specifies.
>
> So they don't match past line 7. You was lying, as usual.
>
>> It also proves that the x86 source-code of Sipser_D specifies that it
>> will continue to call Sipser_H in recursive simulation until the
>> executed Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
>
> Obviously false concerning execution of Sipster_D.
> Sipser_H is returning 0 so Sipser_D will halt.
>
> You have a serious mental health issue, Peter.
End of execution trace of Sipser_D, provided by Peter Olcott :
push ebp
mov ebp,esp
mov eax,[ebp+08]
push eax
mov ecx,[ebp+08]
push ecx
call 0000103e
add esp,+08
test eax,eax
jz 000012c9
xor eax,eax
jmp 000012ce
mov eax,00000001
pop ebp
ret
it clearly halts.
according to Peter Olcott, his halt decider is correct in answering
that it doesn't halt.
I really wonder how someone can be THAT mentally damaged...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 12:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tic4u6$1e8p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58549 |
On 10/14/2022 11:53 AM, Python wrote:
> Lying demented Peter Olcott wrote:
> ..
>> int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
>> {
>> if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
>> return 0;
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
>> }
>>
>> _Sipser_D()
>> [000012ae] 55 push ebp
>> [000012af] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000012b1] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b4] 50 push eax
>> [000012b5] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b8] 51 push ecx
>> [000012b9] e880fdffff call 0000103e
>> [000012be] 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [000012c1] 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [000012c3] 7404 jz 000012c9
>> [000012c5] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>> [000012c7] eb05 jmp 000012ce
>> [000012c9] b801000000 mov eax,00000001
>> [000012ce] 5d pop ebp
>> [000012cf] c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
>>
>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>> address address data code language
>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>
>> The above line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of D by H is
>> proven to exactly match the behavior that the first seven lines of the
>> x86 source-code of D specifies.
>
> So they don't match past line 7. You was lying, as usual.
>
>> It also proves that the x86 source-code of Sipser_D specifies that it
>> will continue to call Sipser_H in recursive simulation until the
>> executed Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
>
> Obviously false concerning execution of Sipster_D.
> Sipser_H is returning 0 so Sipser_D will halt.
>
When Sipser_H correctly simulates Sipser_D the simulated Sipser_D would
never stop running unless Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
Simulating halt decider H computes the mapping from its input finite
string D to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.
Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
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.
What are your qualifications for disagreeing with professor Sipser?
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 19:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tic5a3$25uem$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58552 |
Le 14/10/2022 à 19:06, olcott a écrit :
> On 10/14/2022 11:53 AM, Python wrote:
>> Lying demented Peter Olcott wrote:
>> ..
>>> int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
>>> {
>>> if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
>>> return 0;
>>> return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
>>> }
>>>
>>> _Sipser_D()
>>> [000012ae] 55 push ebp
>>> [000012af] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [000012b1] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [000012b4] 50 push eax
>>> [000012b5] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [000012b8] 51 push ecx
>>> [000012b9] e880fdffff call 0000103e
>>> [000012be] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>> [000012c1] 85c0 test eax,eax
>>> [000012c3] 7404 jz 000012c9
>>> [000012c5] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>> [000012c7] eb05 jmp 000012ce
>>> [000012c9] b801000000 mov eax,00000001
>>> [000012ce] 5d pop ebp
>>> [000012cf] c3 ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
>>>
>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>>> address address data code language
>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>
>>> The above line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of D by H is
>>> proven to exactly match the behavior that the first seven lines of
>>> the x86 source-code of D specifies.
>>
>> So they don't match past line 7. You was lying, as usual.
>>
>>> It also proves that the x86 source-code of Sipser_D specifies that it
>>> will continue to call Sipser_H in recursive simulation until the
>>> executed Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
>>
>> Obviously false concerning execution of Sipster_D.
>> Sipser_H is returning 0 so Sipser_D will halt.
>>
>
> When Sipser_H correctly simulates Sipser_D the simulated Sipser_D would
> never stop running unless Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
Then it is not correctly simulated, as an execution of Sipser_D actually
halts. It's as simple as that. Even your own execution traces proves
that Sipser_D halts.
> Simulating halt decider H computes the mapping from its input finite
> string D to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior of D
> correctly simulated by H.
>
> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>
> 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.
>
> What are your qualifications for disagreeing with professor Sipser?
Pr. Sipser is only stating that "if it is correct then it is correct".
I don't disagree with that.
But your simulation is not correct.
My qualifications? I'm a software engineer for 30 years, graduated in
discrete mathematics and computing science and teach the same kind
of course he is at academic level.
What is your goals when LYING about Pr. Sipser said and pretend that
I disagreed with what he actually said? You want to prove again and
again that you are incompetent, demented and a disgusting human
being?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 12:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tic601$1s5b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58553 |
On 10/14/2022 12:12 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 14/10/2022 à 19:06, olcott a écrit :
>> On 10/14/2022 11:53 AM, Python wrote:
>>> Lying demented Peter Olcott wrote:
>>> ..
>>>> int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
>>>> {
>>>> if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
>>>> return 0;
>>>> return 1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> _Sipser_D()
>>>> [000012ae] 55 push ebp
>>>> [000012af] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [000012b1] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [000012b4] 50 push eax
>>>> [000012b5] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [000012b8] 51 push ecx
>>>> [000012b9] e880fdffff call 0000103e
>>>> [000012be] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>> [000012c1] 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>> [000012c3] 7404 jz 000012c9
>>>> [000012c5] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>>> [000012c7] eb05 jmp 000012ce
>>>> [000012c9] b801000000 mov eax,00000001
>>>> [000012ce] 5d pop ebp
>>>> [000012cf] c3 ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
>>>>
>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>>>> address address data code language
>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin
>>>> Sipser_D
>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push
>>>> Sipser_D
>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push
>>>> Sipser_D
>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call
>>>> Sipser_H
>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>
>>>> The above line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of D by H
>>>> is proven to exactly match the behavior that the first seven lines
>>>> of the x86 source-code of D specifies.
>>>
>>> So they don't match past line 7. You was lying, as usual.
>>>
>>>> It also proves that the x86 source-code of Sipser_D specifies that
>>>> it will continue to call Sipser_H in recursive simulation until the
>>>> executed Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
>>>
>>> Obviously false concerning execution of Sipster_D.
>>> Sipser_H is returning 0 so Sipser_D will halt.
>>>
>>
>> When Sipser_H correctly simulates Sipser_D the simulated Sipser_D
>> would never stop running unless Sipser_H aborts its simulation of
>> Sipser_D.
>
> Then it is not correctly simulated, as an execution of Sipser_D actually
> halts. It's as simple as that. Even your own execution traces proves
> that Sipser_D halts.
>
>> Simulating halt decider H computes the mapping from its input finite
>> string D to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior of
>> D correctly simulated by H.
>>
>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> What are your qualifications for disagreeing with professor Sipser?
>
> Pr. Sipser is only stating that "if it is correct then it is correct".
> I don't disagree with that.
>
He is saying the the behavior of D correctly simulated by H is the
correct behavior to measure.
> But your simulation is not correct.
I have conclusively proven that it is correct, yet you don't care.
--
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 19:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tic68t$25uem$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #58555 |
Shameless lyar and FRAUD, Peter Olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2022 12:12 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 14/10/2022 à 19:06, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 10/14/2022 11:53 AM, Python wrote:
>>>> Lying demented Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> ..
>>>>> int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
>>>>> {
>>>>> if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> return 1;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> _Sipser_D()
>>>>> [000012ae] 55 push ebp
>>>>> [000012af] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [000012b1] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012b4] 50 push eax
>>>>> [000012b5] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012b8] 51 push ecx
>>>>> [000012b9] e880fdffff call 0000103e
>>>>> [000012be] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>> [000012c1] 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>> [000012c3] 7404 jz 000012c9
>>>>> [000012c5] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>>>> [000012c7] eb05 jmp 000012ce
>>>>> [000012c9] b801000000 mov eax,00000001
>>>>> [000012ce] 5d pop ebp
>>>>> [000012cf] c3 ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>>>>> address address data code language
>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin
>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push
>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push
>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call
>>>>> Sipser_H
>>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>
>>>>> The above line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of D by H
>>>>> is proven to exactly match the behavior that the first seven lines
>>>>> of the x86 source-code of D specifies.
>>>>
>>>> So they don't match past line 7. You was lying, as usual.
>>>>
>>>>> It also proves that the x86 source-code of Sipser_D specifies that
>>>>> it will continue to call Sipser_H in recursive simulation until the
>>>>> executed Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously false concerning execution of Sipster_D.
>>>> Sipser_H is returning 0 so Sipser_D will halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Sipser_H correctly simulates Sipser_D the simulated Sipser_D
>>> would never stop running unless Sipser_H aborts its simulation of
>>> Sipser_D.
>>
>> Then it is not correctly simulated, as an execution of Sipser_D actually
>> halts. It's as simple as that. Even your own execution traces proves
>> that Sipser_D halts.
>>
>>> Simulating halt decider H computes the mapping from its input finite
>>> string D to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior of
>>> D correctly simulated by H.
>>>
>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> What are your qualifications for disagreeing with professor Sipser?
>>
>> Pr. Sipser is only stating that "if it is correct then it is correct".
>> I don't disagree with that.
>>
>
> He is saying the the behavior of D correctly simulated by H is the
> correct behavior to measure.
Not even that. He says that *if* the behavior were correctly simulated
*then* it would provide a correct answer. NOTHING MORE than a void
tautology.
He was not aware that crank of your kind have no shame in turning
a tautology into a support of absurd claims.
>> But your simulation is not correct.
>
> I have conclusively proven that it is correct, yet you don't care.
You didn't. You assume that it is correct to "determine" that D will
not halt by simulating it (wrongly). While it actually halts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 12:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tic7te$nku$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58556 |
On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Python wrote:
> Shameless lyar and FRAUD, Peter Olcott wrote:
>> On 10/14/2022 12:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 14/10/2022 à 19:06, olcott a écrit :
>>>> On 10/14/2022 11:53 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Lying demented Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>> ..
>>>>>> int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Sipser_D()
>>>>>> [000012ae] 55 push ebp
>>>>>> [000012af] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [000012b1] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [000012b4] 50 push eax
>>>>>> [000012b5] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [000012b8] 51 push ecx
>>>>>> [000012b9] e880fdffff call 0000103e
>>>>>> [000012be] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>> [000012c1] 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>> [000012c3] 7404 jz 000012c9
>>>>>> [000012c5] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>>>>> [000012c7] eb05 jmp 000012ce
>>>>>> [000012c9] b801000000 mov eax,00000001
>>>>>> [000012ce] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>> [000012cf] c3 ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>>>>>> address address data code language
>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>>>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin
>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push
>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push
>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call
>>>>>> Sipser_H
>>>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of D by H
>>>>>> is proven to exactly match the behavior that the first seven lines
>>>>>> of the x86 source-code of D specifies.
>>>>>
>>>>> So they don't match past line 7. You was lying, as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It also proves that the x86 source-code of Sipser_D specifies that
>>>>>> it will continue to call Sipser_H in recursive simulation until
>>>>>> the executed Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously false concerning execution of Sipster_D.
>>>>> Sipser_H is returning 0 so Sipser_D will halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Sipser_H correctly simulates Sipser_D the simulated Sipser_D
>>>> would never stop running unless Sipser_H aborts its simulation of
>>>> Sipser_D.
>>>
>>> Then it is not correctly simulated, as an execution of Sipser_D actually
>>> halts. It's as simple as that. Even your own execution traces proves
>>> that Sipser_D halts.
>>>
>>>> Simulating halt decider H computes the mapping from its input finite
>>>> string D to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>> of D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>
>>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> What are your qualifications for disagreeing with professor Sipser?
>>>
>>> Pr. Sipser is only stating that "if it is correct then it is correct".
>>> I don't disagree with that.
>>>
>>
>> He is saying the the behavior of D correctly simulated by H is the
>> correct behavior to measure.
>
> Not even that. He says that *if* the behavior were correctly simulated
> *then* it would provide a correct answer.
I have proven that D is correctly simulated by H and you have proven
that you don't care about this verified fact.
--
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 | 2022-10-14 14:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <PIh2L.404270$wLZ8.138974@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #58559 |
On 10/14/22 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/14/2022 12:29 PM, Python wrote:
>> Shameless lyar and FRAUD, Peter Olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2022 12:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 14/10/2022 à 19:06, olcott a écrit :
>>>>> On 10/14/2022 11:53 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Lying demented Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>> int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Sipser_D()
>>>>>>> [000012ae] 55 push ebp
>>>>>>> [000012af] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [000012b1] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [000012b4] 50 push eax
>>>>>>> [000012b5] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [000012b8] 51 push ecx
>>>>>>> [000012b9] e880fdffff call 0000103e
>>>>>>> [000012be] 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>> [000012c1] 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>> [000012c3] 7404 jz 000012c9
>>>>>>> [000012c5] 33c0 xor eax,eax
>>>>>>> [000012c7] eb05 jmp 000012ce
>>>>>>> [000012c9] b801000000 mov eax,00000001
>>>>>>> [000012ce] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>> [000012cf] c3 ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>>>>>>> address address data code language
>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>>>>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin
>>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push
>>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push
>>>>>>> Sipser_D
>>>>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call
>>>>>>> Sipser_H
>>>>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation
>>>>>>> Stopped
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above line-by-line execution trace of the simulation of D by
>>>>>>> H is proven to exactly match the behavior that the first seven
>>>>>>> lines of the x86 source-code of D specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So they don't match past line 7. You was lying, as usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It also proves that the x86 source-code of Sipser_D specifies
>>>>>>> that it will continue to call Sipser_H in recursive simulation
>>>>>>> until the executed Sipser_H aborts its simulation of Sipser_D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously false concerning execution of Sipster_D.
>>>>>> Sipser_H is returning 0 so Sipser_D will halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When Sipser_H correctly simulates Sipser_D the simulated Sipser_D
>>>>> would never stop running unless Sipser_H aborts its simulation of
>>>>> Sipser_D.
>>>>
>>>> Then it is not correctly simulated, as an execution of Sipser_D
>>>> actually
>>>> halts. It's as simple as that. Even your own execution traces proves
>>>> that Sipser_D halts.
>>>>
>>>>> Simulating halt decider H computes the mapping from its input
>>>>> finite string D to an accept or reject state on the basis of the
>>>>> behavior of D correctly simulated by H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are your qualifications for disagreeing with professor Sipser?
>>>>
>>>> Pr. Sipser is only stating that "if it is correct then it is correct".
>>>> I don't disagree with that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He is saying the the behavior of D correctly simulated by H is the
>>> correct behavior to measure.
>>
>> Not even that. He says that *if* the behavior were correctly simulated
>> *then* it would provide a correct answer.
> I have proven that D is correctly simulated by H and you have proven
> that you don't care about this verified fact.
>
No, you haven't. You have shown that the first some number of steps of
it was correctly simulated.
Then you "simulate" the call to H incorrectly.
This is shown because D Halts, but H(D,D) thinks it doesn't
FAIL.
INCORRECT can not be CORRECT.
That is a Tautolog, but you seem to stupid to understand that.
Just proves how little you know about Computation Theory, basic logic,
or even about what "Truth" actually means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-10-14 13:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <e0h2L.404267$wLZ8.52631@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #58541 |
On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/14/2022 7:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/14/22 1:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 10/14/2022 12:06 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>> On 10/13/2022 11:40 AM, olcott 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 >>>> >>>> From what you say above, we see that you are making the same >>>> mistake with the Prof's comment that you do when discussing your >>>> nonfunctional approach to mathematics and logic: He has agreed that >>>> your abstract correctly describes your paper but does not say that >>>> the reasoning in the abstract (or paper) is correct. This is the >>>> same sort of brain fart you have when the H (your ridiculous >>>> decider) is not the same on the outside and when it's called by P. >>>> >>>> At least he was nice enough to give you positive feedback >>> >>> >>> >> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim >>> >> paragraph is correct >>> >> >>> >> 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. >>> >>> This fully validates the key most important element of my proof. >>> >>>> in double talk; that's what your mind produces too. If he actually >>>> thought you had a break through on a major result, he would have >>>> guided you into and through the paper prep, submission, and review >>>> process. He would, at a minimum, invite you to give a talk at an MIT >>>> seminar next time you were in town. And he would introduce you >>>> around to many of your colleagues to be. None of those things >>>> happened. Just thank him for being gracious and move on to another >>>> problem while you still have time. >>> >>> He only had about ten minutes that he could spend on this. This was not >>> enough time to see the recursive simulation at the bottom of page 1. >>> >>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof* >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>> >> >> I think you don't understand how quick the errors in your argument are >> visible, because you are too dumb to see them yourself. > > My notion of a simulating halt decider *is* a halt decider Then why do you say the right answer for it isn't the same as that right answer for a ACTUAL Halt Decider. H(P,d) must return HALTING (1) if P(d) Halts. P(P) when run independently (as a call from main) Halts H(P,P) return 0, which isn't thre REQUIRED answer for it to be a Halt Decider. > > *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. > > and my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would never stop > running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria of > this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this criteria. > > Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it itself does. IF its simulation isn't correct (and thus complete) it doesn't actually define the right answer. It of course can't actually use the simulation of a different machine or the simulation of a different input (like the D based on an H that doesn't do the abort and return 0 that this one does). Now, the CORRECT answer is based on the behavior of a different machine then H itself, it is based on the behavior of indpendently running the input, or of an actual UTM simulating the input to H, and again, both of those based on this ACTUAL D, the one that calls the H that you claim is giving the right answer, the one that aborts its simulation and returns 0. You problem seems to be that you don't understand that you don't get to change the H that the input calls, because you are just too ignorant about what the theory is about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web