On 7/26/25 10:21 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/26/2025 8:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/26/25 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/26/2025 4:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.jul.2025 om 01:36 schreef olcott:
<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> >>>>>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
Olcott (annotated):
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>> until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
running
[comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has >>>>>>> been
fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to
simulate" and
"correctly simulate"]
unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>
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.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own "return" instruction final halt state thus is correctly
rejected as non-halting.
Irrelevant, because HHH cannot correctly simulate itself up to the end. >>>> There is no correct simulation. When the condition is not met, the
conclusion is irrelevant.
You have the requirement incorrectly
<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
No, you do.
Remember, to use this D and H need to be programs,
You are a liar, that is not in the above requirements.
Sure it is, in the meaning of the terms-of-art.
Something you have shown that you don't know.
And you just prove yourself to be a liar by repeating those errors after
they have been pointed out.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)