Re: Analysis of Flibble’s New Take on Simulating Halt Deciders and Pathological Input

On 5/20/2025 2:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/05/2025 07:51, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-19 16:52:29 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

 <snip>
 

Every single one of your points is either wrong or not a counter-
argument: you've got nothing.

>
Some of them are obviously counter arguments. Saying that they are
wrong without finding any error does not convince wnyone whose
opinion matters.

 Perhaps he's stipulated that you're wrong, in which case he's got you over a barrel. :-)
 

<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
I am ONLY talking about how HHH(DDD) meets the above
criteria. Talking about the idea of counter-arguments
without actually providing a counter-argument to that
claim *is* a dishonest dodge away from the point.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer