Re: Is Olcott is a Liar!

On 5/15/24 4:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/15/2024 2:29 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/15/2024 1:04 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/15/2024 9:54 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

*When we stay on the actual topic of this post then*
*the following must be directly addressed and not ignored*

>

You don't get to decide what the topic of a post is.

>

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

>

*When Richard interprets*

>

*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*

>

as *D NEVER simulated by H*

>

Richard is saying
for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least
one element of "D NEVER simulated by H"

>

Can this be an honest mistake?

>

It's a mistake, honest or otherwise, on your part.

>
>

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>

>

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv0ummt%242qov3%242%40i2pn2.org%3E

>
>

On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

>

*I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running
unless aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior
to H. When H aborts this simulation that does not count as
D halting.

>

Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.

>

It means that

>

int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
     return 0;
}

>

is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.

>

Unless you clarify your altered definitions, H is what H is
and that just becomes the conclusion.

>
>

On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

Every D simulated by H ...

>

On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
     return 0;
}

>
>

If you disagree with this translation you must point out the error:
*Translating the above using quantifiers: Richard is saying*
for all "D simulated by H" there exists at least one element
of "D NEVER simulated by H"

>
For a start, it's nothing like what Richard said.  He wouldn't use
confusing gobbledegook mixing up functions and sets of functions.  I
don't think he has ever used the phrase "D never simulated by H"; that's
your invention.
>
He's pointing out a possible H that satisfies your definitions, and
returns a "correct" result 0 (for certain values of "correct").
>
I think the problem here is your failure satisfactorally to define
simulation.
>

 D simulated by H cannot possibly correctly construed as D never
simulated by H.
 In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
x86 instructions of D. This may or may not include one or more recursive
simulations where H correctly simulates itself simulating D.

Which shows you don't understand the nature of categorical conditions.
Note, the point of that post was showing the logical errors in YOUR claim, because your H doesn't correct simulate its input, doing the last instruction (the call H) incorrectly, so simulating 0 steps, allows the better claim of simulating ALL steps done correctly, with just as valid of logic for deciding that it wasn't going to halt.

 

Can this be an honest mistake?

>
I think that likely, yes - you've become confused by recent exchanges
with Richard in particular, and haven't understood what he's written.
>
>

-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>