Re: Ben fails to understand

On 7/4/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 12:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/4/24 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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*

>

>
<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>
>

He said your ALTERED criteria had been met.
>

>
*Ben said that this criteria has been met*
     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
>
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.
>

>
But Ben didn't say it was because of a "Correct Simulation".
>

>
I am not going to address your stupid lies any more.
>
Ben agreed that the above criteria has been met.
Anything and everything that even hints that this
is not true is a lie.
>

>
Beleive whatever. lies you want.
>

>
It is a verified fact that Ben did agree that the criteria
have been met. That you insist upon lying about that so
that we cannot proceed to the next step that follows that
gives me no reason to continue talking to you.
>

>
>
The problem is that Ben is adopting your definitions that professor Sipser is not using.
>

 Ben agrees that my criteria have been met according to their
exact words. If you want to lie about that I won't talk to
you again.
 

Which meant different things, so not the same.
The biggest problem is your H/P interlocking program pair is something outside the normal scope of Computation theory.
The way you have built your Deicder/Decider combination isn't actualy within the definition of normal Computaiton Theory, as that would have Decider as a totally independent program from the program it is deciding on.
Your H and D aren't that sort of thing because they are interwined into a single memory space, and even share code.
This makes some things possible to do about the pair that can not be done if they were independent programs, like H being able to detect that D calls itself (but not copies of itself, which is why you don't allow those copies, as that breasks your lie).
Another of the big effect of thins, is that the way you defined it, D actually does have access to the decider that is going to decide it (if we follow your rule and name the decider H). This can turn what used to be an independent fully defined program P into a dependent program template. Undet THAT condition, Ben agreed that yoUr H could conclude that no version of H could simulate the version of D that uses it, to its final state. Since P is a template, and not a program, it doesn't have the normal Objective definition of behavior, and thus your subjective one might need to be used, even with its problems.
When you asked Professor Sipser, The H will be a SPECIFIC decider, and the D will be a specific input that doesn't change, and thus DOES have an objective behavior (that of directly running it, or completely simulating it) and only if H can determine that this OBJECTIVE definition is met, can it abort. Of course, due the relationship in the construction of D, the H that it was built from can NEVER make that correct determination, as if it does, then D will halt and thus H could not have made the determination.
The fact that you don't understand this just shows how little you understand the theory, or it seems, programming in general.