1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • I finally proved that Ben is wrong about my HHH(DDD) rejecting its inpu

    From olcott@21:1/5 to Ben Bacarisse on Mon Jul 28 11:13:54 2025
    XPost: sci.logic

    <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>

    To make this easier to understand we replace line three
    with the more conventional terminology this line:
    "cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then"

    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.


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

    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⟩.

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

    DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
    reach its own simulated "return" instruction
    final halt state, thus overruling and superseding
    the behavior of the directly executed DDD().

    --
    Copyright 2024 Olcott

    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see."
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Jul 28 21:49:34 2025
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/28/25 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
    <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>

    To make this easier to understand we replace line three
    with the more conventional terminology this line:
    "cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state then"

    Nope, that isn't the equivalent.

    You could say: If the correct simulation of the input would never reach
    a final halt state.

    Note, you error in trying to make it the simulation by the decider
    controlling, the controlling is a CORRECT (and thus complete) simulation
    of this exact input.

    You also error by making the input a category error by not including the
    code for the specific HHH that it calls part of it.


    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.


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

    Nope, it is the DEFINITION

    I guess you are just showing you reject the actual meaning of the words,
    and thus you whole concept of correct reasoning is based on lies.


    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⟩.

    Right, and it *WAS* given a finite string representation, whose correct simulatin (which HHH doesn't do) exactly reproduces.


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

    But that behavior is exactly the behavior of the program it represents.

    Anything else is just al LIE.


    DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
    reach its own simulated "return" instruction
    final halt state, thus overruling and superseding
    the behavior of the directly executed DDD().


    But your HHH doesn't correctly simulate its DDD.

    And, becuase you don't include all of the program of DDD in your representation, it CAN'T be correctly simulated.

    All comments about correct simulation I have made assume this is fixed
    by including that needed code. which of course means no other
    hypothetical HHH is given the same DDD by you arguments, and thus is irrelevent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Wed Jul 30 16:55:41 2025
    XPost: sci.logic

    On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 21:48:31 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

    Sorry, you are just showing how stupid and ignorant you are, and that
    you don't care that you don't actually know that the words you are using actually mean in this context, which is what makes you the pathological
    liar you are.

    Yet another ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy!

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Wed Jul 30 19:52:49 2025
    XPost: sci.logic

    On 7/30/25 12:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 21:48:31 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

    Sorry, you are just showing how stupid and ignorant you are, and that
    you don't care that you don't actually know that the words you are using
    actually mean in this context, which is what makes you the pathological
    liar you are.

    Yet another ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy!

    /Flibble

    And where did I say he his statement was wrong just because of something
    about him?

    I showed the error, that you deceitfully trimmed out, showing that you
    are just a decietful troll, and thus it is NOT ad hominem, and you prove
    your stupidity.

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