• Re: Is Richard a Liar? (test formatting)

    From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.ai.philosophy on Wed May 15 17:54:27 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

    On 5/15/2024 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 5/15/2024 2:29 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Followup-To: set ]


    Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>

    http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv0ummt%242qov3%242%40i2pn2.org%3E

    On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:

    Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running
    unless aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior
    to H. When H aborts this simulation that does not count as
    D halting.

    Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.

    It means that

    int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
         return 0;
    }

    is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
    the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
    that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.

    For a start, it's nothing like what Richard said.

    Now that I cut out all of the weird formatting so we
    can see what Richard actually said immediately below
    what I said:

    On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
    Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running
    unless aborted by H

    On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    ...THAT H can not possible simulate
    the input to the end before it aborts it ...

    We can see that Richard misconstrued what I said.
    That he construed: "Every D simulated by H"
    to mean: {D never simulated by H} (his code example)

    We can see that this seems to be too big of an error
    to be an honest mistake.

    If you want to disagree and say that it seems like an
    honest mistake to you, that is OK.

    If you try to get away with saying Richard made no mistake
    everyone will know that you are lying.

    I spent many hundreds out hours carefully formulating
    those words that Richard intentionally twisted.

    *On Thursday 10/13/2022 11:29 AM*
    MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed that these verbatim words are correct
    (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)

    "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."


    --
    Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.ai.philosophy on Sat May 18 10:56:36 2024
    From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

    On 5/15/2024 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 5/15/2024 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 5/15/2024 2:29 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Followup-To: set ]


    Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>

    http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv0ummt%242qov3%242%40i2pn2.org%3E

    On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
    ;
    Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running
    unless aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior
    to H. When H aborts this simulation that does not count as
    D halting.
    ;
    Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
    ;
    It means that
    ;
    int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
    ;     return 0;
    }
    ;
    is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
    the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
    that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.

    For a start, it's nothing like what Richard said.

    Now that I cut out all of the weird formatting so we
    can see what Richard actually said immediately below
    what I said:

    On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
    Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running
    unless aborted by H

    On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    ...THAT H can not possible simulate
    the input to the end before it aborts it ...

    We can see that Richard misconstrued what I said.
    That he construed: "Every D simulated by H"
    to mean: {D never simulated by H} (his code example)

    We can see that this seems to be too big of an error
    to be an honest mistake.

    If you want to disagree and say that it seems like an
    honest mistake to you, that is OK.

    If you try to get away with saying Richard made no mistake
    everyone will know that you are lying.

    I spent many hundreds out hours carefully formulating
    those words that Richard intentionally twisted.

    *On Thursday 10/13/2022 11:29 AM*
    MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed that these verbatim words are correct
    (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)

    "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."



    --
    Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114