XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 7/28/25 7:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/28/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/28/25 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/28/2025 4:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.jul.2025 om 21:07 schreef olcott:

On 7/26/2025 1:42 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:18:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/26/2025 4:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.jul.2025 om 01:36 schreef olcott:

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

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.

Ben wasn't agreeing with you here.

counter-factual.
Ben perfectly agreed with exactly half of what I said.
Ben agreed that the Sipser approved criteria was met.

<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> >>>>>

It does not matter whether he agreed or not, because it is a vacuous
statement. H does not do a correct simulation. H does not correctly
determines never stop running.
When the conditions are not met, the conclusion is irrelevant and
the whole statement is vacuous.

*A more conventional way of saying that is*

If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
*cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state*

Which has to mean the correct simulation of it input, not ITS
simulation of the input.

Its simulation of its input is
*The actual behavior that this INPUT actually specifies*

Nope, by that logic, the input could mean anything.

Saying that decider H is required report on the behavior
of machine M is a category error.

Nope, it is the definition.

What "Category" are you saying it violates?

The Problem SAYS it must decide on the behavior of the directly executed machine, which is represented/described by the input.

If the input doesn't properly describe that program, *YOU* made the error.

Sorry, you are just proving you LIE.

Turing machines cannot directly report on the behavior
of other Turing machines they can at best indirectly
report on the behavior of Turing machines through the
proxy of finite string machine descriptions such as ⟨M⟩.

And it WAS given the proper description of the machine to decide on.

Or, you just LIED that you D/DD/DDD are built by the proof.

Thus the behavior specified by the input finite string
overrules and supersedes the behavior of the direct
execution.

Nope. Just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

When machine description ⟨M⟩ correctly simulated
by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final
halt state this proves that the ⟨M⟩ input to H specifies
a non-terminating sequence of configurations.

But since H doesn't correctly simulate its input, because it aborts it,
you can't use a non-existent case.

It seems you think lying is valid logic,

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)