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

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

On 24/05/2025 01:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

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

On 23/05/2025 19:37, 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.

>
You're reading it the way most people would, and in the way I said Sipser
would be interpreting the oft-quoted "Sipser quote".  I don't think you've
missed anything particularly.

Maybe it makes less sense out of the context it was posted in.  This was
when he was being less obtuse.  The computation in question only halts
because it is halted by the decider on which it is built.  It is a
halting computation, but according to PO it can reported as not halting
because of what would happen if it were not halted by the decider from
which it is derived.

>
"The computation in question only halts because it is halted by the
decider on which it is built."
>
That is presumably you speaking in PO's voice, but my first reading
was as you saying it!

It was paraphrase.  He has evolved (deliberately) from being very clear:
false is correct for some halting computations; the set of halting
computation is expanded to include some others; right though to the
wording that he managed to trick Sipser with.

The intermediate stages involved turns of phrase like "some computations
only halt because the simulator halts them" and "it would not halt if
line 15 were commented out" and so on.  But the basic plan has been the
same for years: some halting computations can be classed as non-halting
because they halt for a reason he considers special -- a closely related
but different computation would not halt.

If PO were a normal person, the key would be to go back and forth getting
answers to direct questions that would illuminate what he thinks.  But
cranks always duck and dive when asked direct questions because they
know that must avoid being clear.  I have dozens of notes of direct
questions being evaded, time and time again.  The only game (for me) is
to try to get a crank to actually say what they mean as clearly as
possible.  That is, after all, what a proper exchange of view should be
based on.

...

As ever, pointing it out to PO, however explicitly and clearly, has no
effect on what PO believes.

Right, but it is possible to try to get as clear and concise an
expression of what he believes.  There's no point in trying to change
his mind, but his nonsense can then be laid bare for all to see.  At
that point, I would want to just repeat it back (every time he posts)
with an brief explanation that it's wrong rather than try to educate PO.

--
Ben.