Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### (watches state changes)

On 5/9/2024 12:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 09/05/2024 13:37, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 09 May 2024 04:05:14 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:
>

I'll respond with my assessment on this, provided you agree in advance
that you won't quote me elsewhere [in other threads/forums] in support
of your claims.  Not that I can really enforce this, but I think for the
most part you are basically honest, and would try to keep an agreement
you made on this, if you chose to make one.
>
You understand the reason I ask this:  you are unfortunately completely
unable to judge what other people say to you, and as soon as you
(mis)interpret the smallest thing as supporting some part of your
argument you will (mis)quote "Mike Terry [or whoever] agrees that
[something I did not agree to, or some literal quote taken out of
context, which misrepresents my actual opinion]."
>
If I persuade you of anything, of course you can present those views /as
your own words/, but none of that "Mike Terry said..." or "an expert
(lol) has agreed that..." and so on.  Those are attempts to silence
opposition through (mistaken) appeals to authority and I don't want to
be involved in that.
>
Of course you can quote me freely within this thread where it will be in
context :)
>
Mike.

>
Hello Mike, are you one of the „experts” Olcott quotes? I would be
interested in what your original concession regarding the code was.
Have a nice day
>

 I'm not one of the absent experts (quoted as being computer scientist professors or the like) PO likes to quote in his appeals to authority.  I've only ever dealt with PO on these forums, and when he quotes me he mentions me by name, so you'd know it was me specifically, unlike all his remote expert supporters.  :)
 PO quotes anybody who ever says something that he can interpret as supporting anything he says, however obvious that might be.  For example, he quotes me as confirming that a simulator, while calculating the steps of a computation, can observe the internal state of that computation as it progresses, monitoring for execution patterns etc.. 

*This is the part I said I would get back to you on*
*This is the part I said I would get back to you on*
*This is the part I said I would get back to you on*
Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 >
 > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state (tape contents
 > etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.
 >
Here is how I extrapolates that the above validates the notion
of a simulating termination analyzer.
*Providing my reasoning as a hierarchy of generality to specificity*
The outermost layer of this is one more detail that you did not say.
Because the simulator must perform every detail of the simulation of
the underlying machine it can watch every single state change of this
underlying machine.
*That was only the first layer of my reasoning*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer