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

On 5/20/25 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
 

But it CAN'T, as your DDD doesn't meet the criteria of being a PROGRAM. You have admitted to that.
That is like talking about how the color green meets the requirements of being greater that 2.
And, when you fix the category error by including into DDD, the code of the HHH that gives what you say is the right answer, by aborting its simulation and returning 0, then it is clear that the CORRECT simulation (which isn't the simulation by HHH, as it just stops short) will see DDD call THAT HHH (the one that aborts) and see that it will simulate its input for a while, and then abort its simulation (since that *IS* what that HHH does) and then returns 0 to DDD and it will halt.
THus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for HHH to correctly decide that the correct simulation of DDD doesn't halt, as it does.
Your attempts to CHANGE the input to have the HHH that doesn't abort, just shows that you beleive in LYING, as *THE* DDD that exists in the problem has to be build on the HHH that you claim to get the right answer, or you are just admitting that you lied that you were making an equivalent to the proof.
Sorry, all you are doing is showing that your whole arguement is just the dishonest dodge that you try to accuse everyone else of doing as you project your own lies onto others. (A common technique of liars).