Re: Ben fails to understand

On 7/4/24 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has been
     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" and
     "correctly simulate"]

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.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?
>

>
<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>
>
The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved
criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong
H is correct to reject D as non-halting.
>

>
Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the first part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar.
>

>
Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore
the second part <is> entailed.
>

>
>
No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not talking about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements.
>

 *Ben did say that the criteria has been met*

He said your ALTERED criteria had been met.
Since your criteria is NOT the criteria for halting, you can't use it to claim non-halting.
Thus, your claims are shown to be stupid lies out of your intentional ignorance of definitions.

 On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > 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.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
 > halted.  That much is a truism.
 *If the criteria has been met then its second half is entailed*
 >>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
 >>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
 *Ben incorrectly believes that Professor Sipser is wrong about this*