Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability

On 5/9/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2024 7:37 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 09 May 2024 04:05:14 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:
>

I'll respond with my assessment on this, provided you agree in advance
that you won't quote me elsewhere [in other threads/forums] in support
of your claims.  Not that I can really enforce this, but I think for the
most part you are basically honest, and would try to keep an agreement
you made on this, if you chose to make one.
>
You understand the reason I ask this:  you are unfortunately completely
unable to judge what other people say to you, and as soon as you
(mis)interpret the smallest thing as supporting some part of your
argument you will (mis)quote "Mike Terry [or whoever] agrees that
[something I did not agree to, or some literal quote taken out of
context, which misrepresents my actual opinion]."
>
If I persuade you of anything, of course you can present those views /as
your own words/, but none of that "Mike Terry said..." or "an expert
(lol) has agreed that..." and so on.  Those are attempts to silence
opposition through (mistaken) appeals to authority and I don't want to
be involved in that.
>
Of course you can quote me freely within this thread where it will be in
context :)
>
Mike.

>
Hello Mike, are you one of the „experts” Olcott quotes? I would be
interested in what your original concession regarding the code was.
Have a nice day
>

  *New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
*New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
*New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
 I prefer to achieve 100% mutual agreement on the verbatim language
of any paraphrase of position and get specific permission to quote
these exact words as I have done with professor Sipser and one more
top expert in a different field.
 

And, as has been shown with your qoutes from professor Sipser, you "interprete" his words in ways that do not match what he would mean with those words, because you just don't know what those words means to someone knoledgable in the field.
For instance, the only "correct simulation" that Prof Sipser would be thinking of would be that of a UTM, so the only meaning to him of a "correct simulation" not ending would be a machine, that when directly run, never reaches a final state.