Re: Olcott is a Liar!

On 5/15/24 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:

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

[ Followup-To: set ]
>

 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:
 >>
 >> 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.
 

For a start, it's nothing like what Richard said.

 Now that I cut out all of the weird formatting so we
can see what Richard actually said immediately below
what I said:
  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running
 >> unless aborted by H
 On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > ...THAT H can not possible simulate
 > the input to the end before it aborts it ...
 We can see that Richard misconstrued what I said.
That he construed: "Every D simulated by H"
to mean: {D never simulated by H} (his code example)
 We can see that this seems to be too big of an error
to be an honest mistake.
 If you want to disagree and say that it seems like an
honest mistake to you, that is OK.
 If you try to get away with saying Richard made no mistake
everyone will know that you are lying.
 I spent many hundreds out hours carefully formulating
those words that Richard intentionally twisted.
 *On Thursday 10/13/2022 11:29 AM*
MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed that these verbatim words are correct
(He has neither reviewed nor 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."
 

Nope, as explained many times, the message posted was NOT the one showing that some H could simualate past the point, which I proved elsewhere, but is showing that even if your claim was correct, the logic your H uses is flawed, and the program descrxibed here does a BETTER job than yours, as it simulates ALL the instructions that it simuulates correctly, and then used questionable logic, instead of incorrectly simulating the last instruction (the call H) as part of your incorrect logic.
All correct is better that some incorrect.
I have proved your statement incorrect, and you refuse to answer about it, proving you are just a pathological lying due to YOUR reckless disregard for the truth.
And, apparently you think I might have a case, as you aren't willing to accept the put up or snut up challange, as when you are shown wrong, your main weapon, claiming people haven't refuted you becomes an admission of lying.