Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/25/2025 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:

*Mike understood this perfectly*
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
--------- Sipser quote -----
    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.
----------------------------
 we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I said a SHD
does above.  It tells PO that in the tight loop example, H correctly
simulates as far as [A], at which point it correctly determines that
"its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted", so
it can decide "non-halting".
 All correct and natural, and no deliberately
false premises to mislead PO.
 On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E

And you dishonestly left out the part that immediately follows where he states that you are wrong:

PO's problem is his misinterpretation of "its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted".  In the case of his HHH/DD, the simulated input (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated far enough, but HHH simply /doesn't/ go far enough because PO has mistakenly decided he's seen some pattern that implies non-halting in the trace.  [A pattern akin to the "tight loop" pattern, except that the tight loop pattern is sound, while his pattern is unsound, matching on a halting input. Simples!]

This proves, as you yourself said:
On 5/25/2025 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 > You Are the epitome of bad faith and dishonesty.
 > This may cost you your actual soul: Revelations 21:8.