On 7/28/25 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/28/2025 4:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.jul.2025 om 21:07 schreef olcott:
On 7/26/2025 1:42 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:18:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/26/2025 4:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.jul.2025 om 01:36 schreef olcott:
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's >>>>>>>>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that >>>>>>>>> P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted. He knows and accepts >>>>>>>>> that P(P) actually does stop. The wrong answer is justified by >>>>>>>>> what
would happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they >>>>>>>>> actually are.
Ben wasn't agreeing with you here.
counter-factual.
Ben perfectly agreed with exactly half of what I said.
Ben agreed that the Sipser approved criteria was met.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>
It does not matter whether he agreed or not, because it is a vacuous
statement. H does not do a correct simulation. H does not correctly
determines never stop running.
When the conditions are not met, the conclusion is irrelevant and the
whole statement is vacuous.
*A more conventional way of saying that is*
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
*cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state*
Which has to mean the correct simulation of it input, not ITS simulation
of the input.
On 7/28/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/28/25 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/28/2025 4:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.jul.2025 om 21:07 schreef olcott:
On 7/26/2025 1:42 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:18:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/26/2025 4:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.jul.2025 om 01:36 schreef olcott:
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's >>>>>>>>>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>>>>> that P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted. He knows and >>>>>>>>>> accepts
that P(P) actually does stop. The wrong answer is justified >>>>>>>>>> by what
would happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they >>>>>>>>>> actually are.
Ben wasn't agreeing with you here.
counter-factual.
Ben perfectly agreed with exactly half of what I said.
Ben agreed that the Sipser approved criteria was met.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>> 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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>
It does not matter whether he agreed or not, because it is a vacuous
statement. H does not do a correct simulation. H does not correctly
determines never stop running.
When the conditions are not met, the conclusion is irrelevant and
the whole statement is vacuous.
*A more conventional way of saying that is*
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
*cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state*
Which has to mean the correct simulation of it input, not ITS
simulation of the input.
Its simulation of its input is
*The actual behavior that this INPUT actually specifies*
Saying that decider H is required report on the behavior
of machine M is a category error.
Turing machines cannot directly report on the behavior
of other Turing machines they can at best indirectly
report on the behavior of Turing machines through the
proxy of finite string machine descriptions such as ⟨M⟩.
Thus the behavior specified by the input finite string
overrules and supersedes the behavior of the direct
execution.
When machine description ⟨M⟩ correctly simulated
by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final
halt state this proves that the ⟨M⟩ input to H specifies
a non-terminating sequence of configurations.
On 2025-08-02 13:33:04 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/2/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
When you make a claim about "DDD simulated by HHH" you apparently
don't know what the words mean. The DDD simulated by HHH is the
same as DDD executed directly and it specifies the same behaviour
no matter how you call it.
Counter factual
Appearances can be false or misleading. However, in absense of contrary information, being true is more likely.
On 8/3/2025 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-02 13:33:04 +0000, olcott said:There is no likely or unlikely to Boolean expressions.
On 8/2/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
When you make a claim about "DDD simulated by HHH" you apparently
don't know what the words mean. The DDD simulated by HHH is the
same as DDD executed directly and it specifies the same behaviour
no matter how you call it.
Counter factual
Appearances can be false or misleading. However, in absense of contrary
information, being true is more likely.
there is only true or false.
_DDD()
[00002192] 55 push ebp
[00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d pop ebp
[000021a3] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH the definition
of the x86 language specifies that the correctly
emulated DDD cannot possibly ever reach past its own
machine address of [0000219a].
You can either comprehend this or fail to comprehend
this. Disagreement is inherently incorrect.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,064 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 146:23:48 |
| Calls: | 13,691 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,935 |
| D/L today: |
23 files (2,078K bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,410,869 |