Re: Is Richard a Liar?

On 5/15/2024 2:29 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
 In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/15/2024 1:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

 

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/15/2024 9:54 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

 [ .... ]
 

*When we stay on the actual topic of this post then*
*the following must be directly addressed and not ignored*

 

You don't get to decide what the topic of a post is.

 

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

 

*When Richard interprets*

 

*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*

 

as *D NEVER simulated by H*

 

Richard is saying
for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least
one element of "D NEVER simulated by H"

 

Can this be an honest mistake?

 

It's a mistake, honest or otherwise, on your part.

 

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>

 

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv0ummt%242qov3%242%40i2pn2.org%3E

 

On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

 

*I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running
unless aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior
to H. When H aborts this simulation that does not count as
D halting.

 

Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.

 

It means that

 

int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
     return 0;
}

 

is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.

 

Unless you clarify your altered definitions, H is what H is
and that just becomes the conclusion.

 

On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

Every D simulated by H ...

 

On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
     return 0;
}

 

If you disagree with this translation you must point out the error:
*Translating the above using quantifiers: Richard is saying*
for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least one element
of "D NEVER simulated by H"

 For a start, it's nothing like what Richard said.  He wouldn't use
confusing gobbledegook mixing up functions and sets of functions.  I
don't think he has ever used the phrase "D never simulated by H"; that's
your invention.
 He's pointing out a possible H that satisfies your definitions, and
returns a "correct" result 0 (for certain values of "correct").
 I think the problem here is your failure satisfactorally to define
simulation.
 

D simulated by H cannot possibly correctly construed as D never
simulated by H.
In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
x86 instructions of D. This may or may not include one or more recursive
simulations where H correctly simulates itself simulating D.

Can this be an honest mistake?

 I think that likely, yes - you've become confused by recent exchanges
with Richard in particular, and haven't understood what he's written.
 

-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer