Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 10/30/24 12:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/29/2024 10:50 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

On 10/29/2024 8:50 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

On 29/10/2024 13:56, olcott wrote:

To the best of my knowledge no one besides me ever came up with the
idea of making a simulating halt decider / emulating termination
analyzer.

>
     The /idea/ is ancient, and certainly dates back at least to the
1970s.  For a relatively informal discussion, see paragraph 3 of
>
   http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
>
intended for second-year undergraduates and present on the web from 1996
[though then as a Nottingham University web page].  I certainly didn't
invent the idea.  The same page includes some stuff about Busy Beavers.
You, and perhaps others, may also find some of the surrounding pages
[linked from that one] interesting, eg the stuff about UTMs and about
minimal computers.  Again, I am not claiming credit for inventing any
of this.

>
You may have noticed that the moron responded to your message in less than 10 minutes. Do you think he read the material before responding? A good troll would have waited a few hours before answering.

 Announced how I reviewed it and Richard correctly corrected me.
It is still wrong, but for a different reason. It rejects the
self-evident truth of this idea:

Which just proves that you thnk LYING is ok, and that you regularly LIE in what you say,

 <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>
 

Which means that if H can determine that a CORRECTLY (which to Professr Sipser means completely) Simulation of THIS input would not halt.
SInce it does, (even if H doesn't do it because it wasn't programmed to) H could not correctly determine that it does.
You "logic" is based on lying about what a "program" is, as you "program" doesn't contain all the code it uses so your hypothetical H can be given the "same input" that isn't actually the same,
Sorry, you are just proving will all of this that you are nothig but a DAMNED LIAR that doesn't care about truth.

Zeno could make a paradox concluding that it is impossible
to walk across the room. Zeno was simply wrong.
 

As are YOU.