Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

Op 23.mei.2025 om 20:48 schreef olcott:

On 5/23/2025 1:37 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

[...]

And the big picture is that this can be done because false is the
correct halting decision for some halting computations.  He has said
this explicitly (as I have posted before) but he has also explained it
in words:
>
| When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its input would
| never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider this halt
| decider has made a correct not-halting determination.

>
Hmm.  I don't read that the way you do.  Did I miss something?
>
It assumes that the input is a non-halting computation ("its input
would never halt") and asserts that, in certain circumstances,
his mythical halt decider correctly determines that the input
is non-halting.
>
When his mythical halt decider correctly determines that its input
doesn't halt, it has made a correct non-halting determination.
It's just a tautology.
>

 It is a tautology that a dozen people here
have been trying to get away with denying
for two and one half years.
 <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>
 

Olcott keeps ignoring what other people say and only follows his dreams. Nobody denied that Sipser agreed to this vacuous statement.
He ignores that it is a verifiable fact that H does not correctly simulate its input D. It als does not correctly determine that its simulated D will never stop running unless aborted, because this D already includes aborting code and will therefore stop, without the need to abort.
As both requirements are false, the conclusion is vacuous.
But we can predict that olcott will ignore this, because it disturbs his dreams, and will keep claiming that everyone denies it.