Re: Ben fails to understand

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Ben fails to understand
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 04. Jul 2024, 18:14:23
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <d02a4f230f49fe358611bb5ccc6245f2ca5262e6@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/4/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2024 11:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
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.
>
 Ben agreed that the first part has been met therefore
the second part <is> entailed.
 
No, Ben says that if you redefine the question, and are not talking about Halting any more, you can meet your requirements.
I guess you can't read proper English.
The problem is your "never stops running unless aborted" as you interpret it is NOT a correct statement of Halting, as it presuems the looking at non-equivalent things.
You, of course, are to stupdid to understand the difference.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Jul 24 * Ben fails to understand18olcott
4 Jul 24 +* Re: Ben fails to understand---- correction2olcott
4 Jul 24 i`- Re: Ben fails to understand---- correction1Richard Damon
4 Jul 24 `* Re: Ben fails to understand15joes
4 Jul 24  `* Re: Ben fails to understand14olcott
4 Jul 24   `* Re: Ben fails to understand13Richard Damon
4 Jul 24    `* Re: Ben fails to understand12olcott
4 Jul 24     `* Re: Ben fails to understand11Richard Damon
4 Jul 24      `* Re: Ben fails to understand10olcott
4 Jul 24       `* Re: Ben fails to understand9Richard Damon
4 Jul 24        `* Re: Ben fails to understand8olcott
4 Jul 24         `* Re: Ben fails to understand7Richard Damon
4 Jul 24          `* Re: Ben fails to understand6olcott
4 Jul 24           `* Re: Ben fails to understand5Richard Damon
4 Jul 24            `* Re: Ben fails to understand4olcott
4 Jul 24             `* Re: Ben fails to understand3Richard Damon
4 Jul 24              `* Re: Ben fails to understand2olcott
5 Jul 24               `- Re: Ben fails to understand1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal