Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point?

On 6/8/2024 2:59 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 13:36:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 1:12 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:10:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
What are all the other HH?

Still waiting on this.
 

And Sipser's "criterion" is not at all disputed.

It is not Sipser's criteria it is MY criteria that I spent two years
carefully composing that professor Sipser reviewed and approved.

It shouldn't have taken 2 years.
 

For Everyone else 80 years was not enough.

 

D is accountable for the behavior of its actual input and not freaking
accountable for any damn thing else in the whole freaking universe.
Halt deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS BASED ON THE
ACTUAL BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES.

And not based on whatever else the simulator might wrongly do with it.

Everyone else get this criteria incorrectly.

That everyone wants to avoid looking at my conclusive proof that DD
correctly simulated by HH has provably different behavior than the
direct executed DD(DD) is dishonest.

Dishonest is claiming a simulator gets to a different conclusion.

A simulator that simulates something different than the real thing
is not a simulator.
 

DD *correctly* simulated by HH has provably different behavior
than the directly behavior of the executed DD(DD).
When everyone makes sure to ignore this correct proof they
are being quite dishonest.
*Richard says that he intends to be dishonest about this*
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK
 >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
 >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
 >
 > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you
 > are correct, because I am not willing to put
 > that effort into your worthless claim.
 >

I conclusively prove otherwise and everyone:
(a) Ignores this proof (b) Fails to understand this proof (c) Lies about
the results of this proof.

 >

Even if that part may be right, it is of no use to the halting problem.
>

*THIS IS THE PART THAT BEN FAILED TO UNDERSTAND*
It is of use to the halting problem in that it corrects
the false assumption that HH(DD,DD) is even allowed to
report on the behavior of DD(DD) instead of being required
to report on the behavior that the input to HH(DD,DD)
specifies as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH.
THE LIMITS TO COMPUTATION WILL BE ABOLISHED!!!

Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) we
must first see that the Sipser approved criteria have been met:

I already agreed to it.
 

Then you agreed that HH(DD,DD)==0 is correct and the Halting
Problem is wrong.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer