Re: The exact words of this spec are met

On 5/14/25 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 12:50 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/05/2025 08:11, vallor wrote:

Spent a couple of hours reading back the last few days of posts.  Huboy,
what a train wreck.  (But like a train wreck, it's hard to look
away, which might explain how this has been going on for 20(?) years.)
>
I want to thank both Richard's, wij, dbush, Mike, Keith, Fred,
Mikko, and anybody else I've forgotten for trying to explain to
Mr. Olcott and Mr. Flibble how you all see their claims.  I wanted to
point out three things:
>
a) Mr. Olcott claims his HHH simulator detects an non-terminating
input and halts.  But others (I forget who) report that -- due
to a bug -- D would actually terminate on its own.  His HHH
simulator therefore gives the wrong answer.

>
Not really due to a bug.  D actually /does/ terminate on its own, and that's a consequence of PO's intended design.  (Yes, there are bugs, but D's coding is what PO intended.)
>

 int main()
{
   DDD();
}
 In other words you expect that the HHH(DDD)
that the above DDD() calls must report on
the behavior of its caller ?

No, of its input, which just happens to be the same code, and thus will do the same thing.
That the same code with the same input will do the same thing seems to be a foreign concept to you, maybe because it is a fundamental truth/

 

>
b) Mr. Olcott appears to agree with Turing at this point, but may
be unwilling to abandon the work he's spent so much time on.
>
c) (I am not a doctor.)  After seeing Mr. Olcott's representations
of Professor Sipser's words, as well as the way he edits his posts,
as well as the way he ignores clear refutation, my personal,
non-professional, opinion is that he's more deluded than
outright dishonest.  Hopefully he can avoid the latter in the future.

>
I agree, although he is not completely beyond the odd lie from time to time.
>
[Like you, I'm not a doctor either.  My ideas below just seem logical to me...]
>
I have long put forward my theory that PO is "neurally divergent" or whatever the modern term should be:  his brain wiring renders him incapable of proper handling of abstract concepts, so naturally he cannot follow academic texts, understand their definitions or even their basic concepts, which are all "abstract".  Also the idea of "proof" or even "logical reasoning" is not something his brain registers - yes, he says he is presenting proofs and so on, but he doesn't really know what that would entail!  He's only saying it because he at least understands that that is what he must do in order to "win the argument".
>
I don't say any of this to insult PO.  It's the conclusion I reached when I looked at the nature of PO's mistakes that he makes over and over.  Obviously he doesn't "get" basic concepts like TM, Halting, function, number, truth, ...whatever, but the clue for me is in what he does instead.  He encounters the words, and in his head replaces them with non-abstract "concrete/mechanical" notions that do not properly reflect the meaning other people pick up.  So we have
>
-  TM --> C progam running on some physical/logical machine (like his x86utm execution environment)
-  function (mathematical) --> C function executing a sequence of steps
-  truth --> provable (proofs have a series of steps that can be mechanically verified)
-  halting --> some simulation by another piece of code reaching its end
-  pgm spec. --> description of the program steps a C function actually performs
...
and so on.  In each case, an abstract notion being blanked over,

 The abstract notion is proven to be incoherent
on the basis of its fully specified concrete
implementation.

You mean you INCORRECT implementation based on an admitted category error?

 The abstract notions always "abstract away" key
details that prove they are incoherent.

Nope, you just don't understand what you are talking about.

 By making sure to ignore these key details that
these abstractions get incorrectly no error is
discernible.

You mean like the fact that the input to H needs to be the representation of an actual program?
I guess you don't understand that basic fact.

 

and in his head replaced with something more concrete ("procedural"), but missing the essence of the original concept.
>

 The essence of the original concept depends on false
assumptions that are only proven false when the
ALL of the details of the abstraction are filled
in with its concrete form.

Nope, they are the definition. YOU are the one that just admits you are violating the specifcations,

 

And his "proofs" upon examination are seen to be not "logical reasoning" at all - he will make a series of claims that he thinks are true, but they do not actually follow from each other.  I don't doubt that PO /

 NO ONE HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO SHOW THAT HHH/DDD DOES NOT
MEET THE EXACT WORDS OF THIS SPEC.
 <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
 Every fake attempt in the last 2.5 years
CHANGES THE WORDS AND THEN REBUTS THE CHANGED WORDS.
 

Since your DDD isn't a program, you can't use that, since it was based on H and D being actual programs, as that is the only thing the real theory talks about.
Sprry, you sunk your battleship by admitting that you are making a category error by having your input not be a program.