Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/26/2025 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.mei.2025 om 04:22 schreef olcott:

On 5/25/2025 9:00 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 25/05/2025 21:30, olcott wrote:

On 5/25/2025 3:05 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/25/2025 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:

*Mike understood this perfectly*
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
--------- Sipser quote -----
    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.
----------------------------
>
we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I said a SHD
does above.  It tells PO that in the tight loop example, H correctly
simulates as far as [A], at which point it correctly determines that
"its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted", so
it can decide "non-halting".
>
All correct and natural, and no deliberately
false premises to mislead PO.
>
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E

>
And you dishonestly left out the part that immediately follows where he states that you are wrong:
>

>
*VERFIED FACT*
Mike Terry Proves ---
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

>
Just for the record:
>
1)  I didn't offer any proofs of /anything/
>
-  I did explain how Sipser's words can be naturally interpreted as explaining
    how a simulating halt decider can operate.  [That is not a proof.]
>

>
It seems like proof to me.
When-so-ever anyone provides complete and correct reasoning
showing how an expression of language is true, this is a proof.
>

-  I also explained why that explanation *doesn't* apply to your HHH/ DDD pair
>

>
Yes you did do this.
>
*On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote*
the simulated input (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated
far enough, but HHH simply /doesn't/ go far enough
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
I use the simpler DDD because everyone here gets
completely confused even by this simple example.
>
How many recursive emulations does HHH have to
wait before its emulated DDD magically halts
on its own without ever needing to be aborted?
>
Once you and I work through this one point I may
finally have complete closure.

Again you make the same mistake by not only changing the decider, but also the input.
We are discussing the input where DDD calls a HHH that aborts after one cycle.

*No we are not. We are discussing this*
*On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote*
the simulated input (DD) /does/ stop running if simulated
far enough, but HHH simply /doesn't/ go far enough
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer