Re: Ben fails to understand

On 7/4/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 10:14 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 09:25:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Python <python@invalid.org> writes:

    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has been
     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" and
     "correctly simulate"]

I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
*would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and accepts that
P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by what would
happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.

You seem to like this quote. Do you agree with it?
>

 <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>
 The first half of the quote agrees that the Sisper approved
criteria has been met, thus unless professor Sipser is wrong
H is correct to reject D as non-halting.
 

Nope. Since you LIE about what Professor Sipser means by the first part, you are shown to be just a stupid liar.
The ONLY meaning for a "Correct Simulation" without careful and explicit definition in this field, and that is what Professor Sipser would use, is a simulaition that correctly fully reproduces the behavior of the program described by the input, which means a simulation that doesn't "abort" its processing.
Since such a correct simulation of THIS D shows that it halts, it is IMPOSSIBLE that H correctly determined that it didn't.
All you claims to the contrary are just stupid lies.
The fact that it seems you can not understand this doesn't make him wrong, it shows that you are just stupid.
And you arguing about that just show how stupid you are.
Unless you can quote actual reliable material to back your claims, you are just showing how much of a stupid liar you are.