On 10/15/2022 9:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:38 -0500
> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500
>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500
>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. and my code proves
>>>>>>>>>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would never stop running
>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted by H, thus meeting the non-halting criteria
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this halt decider. You have agreed that it meet this
>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that it
>>>>>>>>>>> itself does.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says.  PO is saying (as he has
>>>>>>>>>> been for years) that H can decide based on what would happen
>>>>>>>>>> if H were different.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the
>>>>>>>>> behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD
>>>>>>>>> never aborted its simulation of this non-halting input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a
>>>>>>>>> loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop,
>>>>>>>>> thus never reports.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider decides
>>>>>>>> on what the behavior is of the machine the input represents.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the SHD
>>>>>>>> that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you to look
>>>>>>>> at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt Decider
>>>>>>>> would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE CORRECT
>>>>>>>> SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That breaks the
>>>>>>>> dependence of the definiton on itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that
>>>>>>>> definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders
>>>>>>>> can't exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide
>>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt
>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and I
>>>>> didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the
>>>>> ground up and it actually works unlike yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me
>>>> and you stealing my work.
>>>
>>> That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt decider"
>>
>> When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work.
>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
>>
>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory
>>
>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
>>
>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original
>> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging
>> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.)
>> >
>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then
>> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far no
>> > one has done that. Many people did point out their own false
>> > assumptions though.
>> >
>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that
>> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls
>> >> the halt decider as
>>
>> The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your failure to
>> acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft.
>
> No, you did not come up with the idea of using simulation to determine
> if an input halts.
>
> /Flibble

Cite your source.

Every other reference to a "simulating halt decider" simply rejects it
out-of-hand as infeasible. Only my reference includes the criteria for H
to correctly determine the halt status of the conventional "impossible"
inputs to the halting theorem. It is this notion of a "simulating halt
decider" that I am the sole originator of.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:26:56 -0500
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:

> On 10/15/2022 9:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:38 -0500
> > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500
> >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400
> >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting criteria of this halt decider. You have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> agreed that it meet this criteria.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that
> >>>>>>>>>>> it itself does.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says.  PO is saying (as he
> >>>>>>>>>> has been for years) that H can decide based on what would
> >>>>>>>>>> happen if H were different.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the
> >>>>>>>>> behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD
> >>>>>>>>> never aborted its simulation of this non-halting input.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a
> >>>>>>>>> loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop,
> >>>>>>>>> thus never reports.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider
> >>>>>>>> decides on what the behavior is of the machine the input
> >>>>>>>> represents.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the
> >>>>>>>> SHD that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you
> >>>>>>>> to look at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the
> >>>>>>>> decider.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt
> >>>>>>>> Decider would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE
> >>>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That
> >>>>>>>> breaks the dependence of the definiton on itself.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that
> >>>>>>>> definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders
> >>>>>>>> can't exist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide
> >>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt
> >>>>>> decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and
> >>>>> I didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the
> >>>>> ground up and it actually works unlike yours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>
> >>>> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me
> >>>> and you stealing my work.
> >>>
> >>> That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt
> >> decider"
> >>
> >> When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work.
> >> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
> >>
> >> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory
> >>
> >> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
> >> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
> >>
> >> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> >> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> >> Hi!
> >> >>
> >> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original
> >> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging
> >> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.)
> >> >
> >> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then
> >> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far
> >> > no one has done that. Many people did point out their own false
> >> > assumptions though.
> >> >
> >> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that
> >> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls
> >> >> the halt decider as
> >>
> >> The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your failure
> >> to acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft.
> >
> > No, you did not come up with the idea of using simulation to
> > determine if an input halts.
> >
> > /Flibble
>
> Cite your source.
>
> Every other reference to a "simulating halt decider" simply rejects
> it out-of-hand as infeasible. Only my reference includes the criteria
> for H to correctly determine the halt status of the conventional
> "impossible" inputs to the halting theorem. It is this notion of a
> "simulating halt decider" that I am the sole originator of.

Using a universal turing machine to emulate another universal turing
machine is widespread in the HP literature; "emulation" is more or less
a synonym of "simulation"; the term "interpreter" is also used.

/Flibble

On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500
> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on
>>>>> the actual behaviour the input represents.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt
>>>> decider.
>>>
>>> You don't know what
>>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant.
>>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention
>>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and
>>> acceptable than POOH.
>>
>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work.
>>
>> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this
>> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work:
>>
>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
>>
>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory
>>
>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
>>
>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original
>> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging
>> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.)
>> >
>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then
>> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far no
>> > one has done that. Many people did point out their own false
>> > assumptions though.
>> >
>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that
>> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls
>> >> the halt decider as
>
> That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you will not
> be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't stolen your work.
>

You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is your
idea. This is academic theft.

> The simple fact is that the Flibble Signaling Halt Decider gives a
> correct halting decision for all inputs whilst your "solution" does not
> which is proof that I have not stolen your work: my solution uses a
> fundamentally different method of simulation to your "solution".
>
> /Flibble
>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 22:16:41 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the
> >>> actual behaviour the input represents.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt decider.
> >
> > You don't know what OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant.
> > You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and acceptable than POOH.
> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work.
Your work is "POOH Decider", nothing to do with the P executed independently.
Your claim "The HP is refuted" is false, you are spreading false information. (copyright?)

On 10/15/2022 9:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:26:56 -0500
> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2022 9:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:38 -0500
>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500
>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting criteria of this halt decider. You have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed that it meet this criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it itself does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says.  PO is saying (as he
>>>>>>>>>>>> has been for years) that H can decide based on what would
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen if H were different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this SHD
>>>>>>>>>>> never aborted its simulation of this non-halting input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a
>>>>>>>>>>> loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop,
>>>>>>>>>>> thus never reports.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider
>>>>>>>>>> decides on what the behavior is of the machine the input
>>>>>>>>>> represents.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the
>>>>>>>>>> SHD that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you
>>>>>>>>>> to look at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the
>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt
>>>>>>>>>> Decider would report non-haliting if it could prove that THE
>>>>>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION (not what it does) would never halt. That
>>>>>>>>>> breaks the dependence of the definiton on itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that
>>>>>>>>>> definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt Deciders
>>>>>>>>>> can't exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide
>>>>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt
>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it and
>>>>>>> I didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own from the
>>>>>>> ground up and it actually works unlike yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find me
>>>>>> and you stealing my work.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt
>>>> decider"
>>>>
>>>> When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work.
>>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
>>>>
>>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory
>>>>
>>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
>>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
>>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> >> Hi!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original
>>>> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging
>>>> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.)
>>>> >
>>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then
>>>> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far
>>>> > no one has done that. Many people did point out their own false
>>>> > assumptions though.
>>>> >
>>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that
>>>> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls
>>>> >> the halt decider as
>>>>
>>>> The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your failure
>>>> to acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft.
>>>
>>> No, you did not come up with the idea of using simulation to
>>> determine if an input halts.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> Cite your source.
>>
>> Every other reference to a "simulating halt decider" simply rejects
>> it out-of-hand as infeasible. Only my reference includes the criteria
>> for H to correctly determine the halt status of the conventional
>> "impossible" inputs to the halting theorem. It is this notion of a
>> "simulating halt decider" that I am the sole originator of.
>
> Using a universal turing machine to emulate another universal turing
> machine is widespread in the HP literature; "emulation" is more or less
> a synonym of "simulation"; the term "interpreter" is also used.
>
> /Flibble
>

OK so everyone already knows about simulators, the idea of a "simulating
halt decider" is my idea. Please do not refer to this idea without
citing me as the source.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:

> On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500
> > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide
> >>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt
> >>>> decider.
> >>>
> >>> You don't know what
> >>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant.
> >>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention
> >>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and
> >>> acceptable than POOH.
> >>
> >> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work.
> >>
> >> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this
> >> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work:
> >>
> >> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
> >>
> >> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory
> >>
> >> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
> >> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
> >>
> >> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> >> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> >> Hi!
> >> >>
> >> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original
> >> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging
> >> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.)
> >> >
> >> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then
> >> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far
> >> > no one has done that. Many people did point out their own false
> >> > assumptions though.
> >> >
> >> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that
> >> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls
> >> >> the halt decider as
> >
> > That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you will
> > not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't stolen
> > your work.
>
> You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is your
> idea. This is academic theft.

I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of simulating
halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating halt decider.

>
> > The simple fact is that the Flibble Signaling Halt Decider gives a
> > correct halting decision for all inputs whilst your "solution" does
> > not which is proof that I have not stolen your work: my solution
> > uses a fundamentally different method of simulation to your
> > "solution".
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
> >

/Flibble

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:39:07 -0500
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:

> On 10/15/2022 9:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:26:56 -0500
> > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/15/2022 9:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:38 -0500
> >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/15/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:28:48 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:20 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 08:17:44 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 3:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 20:39:26 -0400
> >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my code proves that D correctly simulated by H would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running unless aborted by H, thus meeting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the non-halting criteria of this halt decider. You have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed that it meet this criteria.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, H can decide based on the CORRECT simulation that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> it itself does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But that's not what PO's quote says.  PO is saying (as he
> >>>>>>>>>>>> has been for years) that H can decide based on what would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> happen if H were different.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider necessarily must predict the
> >>>>>>>>>>> behavior of what its non-halting input would do if this
> >>>>>>>>>>> SHD never aborted its simulation of this non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>>> input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To say otherwise would be to say that a SHD reports that a
> >>>>>>>>>>> loop is infinite after it infinitely simulates this loop,
> >>>>>>>>>>> thus never reports.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> THen they are not Halt Deciders, as a REAL halt decider
> >>>>>>>>>> decides on what the behavior is of the machine the input
> >>>>>>>>>> represents.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Your requrement that it is only the simulation done by the
> >>>>>>>>>> SHD that gives you the problem, because that is forcing you
> >>>>>>>>>> to look at non-inputs if the input uses a copy of the
> >>>>>>>>>> decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A REAL Simulating Halt Decider that actually was a Halt
> >>>>>>>>>> Decider would report non-haliting if it could prove that
> >>>>>>>>>> THE CORRECT SIMULATION (not what it does) would never
> >>>>>>>>>> halt. That breaks the dependence of the definiton on
> >>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> THe problem is that P/D can act pathological to that
> >>>>>>>>>> definition, but that is why Univerally Correct Halt
> >>>>>>>>>> Deciders can't exist.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly
> >>>>>>>>> decide on the actual behaviour the input represents.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating
> >>>>>>>> halt decider.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your criteria is erroneous so nobody would want to steal it
> >>>>>>> and I didn't steal your halt "decider": I designed my own
> >>>>>>> from the ground up and it actually works unlike yours.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When you Google search "simulating halt decider" we only find
> >>>>>> me and you stealing my work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is obviously a lie because I haven't stole your work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This is message is found by Google searching "simulating halt
> >>>> decider"
> >>>>
> >>>> When you refer to my work as your own you are stealing my work.
> >>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory
> >>>>
> >>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
> >>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>> >> Hi!
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important
> >>>> >> original solution to the halting problem until all of you
> >>>> >> stop engaging with Olcott and his non-solution to the
> >>>> >> halting problem.)
> >>>> >
> >>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect
> >>>> > then at least one person could correctly point out an
> >>>> > error. So far no one has done that. Many people did point
> >>>> > out their own false assumptions though.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider*
> >>>> >> that forks the simulation into two branches if the input
> >>>> >> calls the halt decider as
> >>>>
> >>>> The notion of a "simulating halt decider" is my idea, your
> >>>> failure to acknowledge this is plagiarism, a form of theft.
> >>>
> >>> No, you did not come up with the idea of using simulation to
> >>> determine if an input halts.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>
> >> Cite your source.
> >>
> >> Every other reference to a "simulating halt decider" simply rejects
> >> it out-of-hand as infeasible. Only my reference includes the
> >> criteria for H to correctly determine the halt status of the
> >> conventional "impossible" inputs to the halting theorem. It is
> >> this notion of a "simulating halt decider" that I am the sole
> >> originator of.
> >
> > Using a universal turing machine to emulate another universal turing
> > machine is widespread in the HP literature; "emulation" is more or
> > less a synonym of "simulation"; the term "interpreter" is also used.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> OK so everyone already knows about simulators, the idea of a
> "simulating halt decider" is my idea. Please do not refer to this
> idea without citing me as the source.

On 10/15/2022 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 22:16:41 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the
>>>>> actual behaviour the input represents.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>> You don't know what OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant.
>>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and acceptable than POOH.
>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work.
>
> Your work is "POOH Decider", nothing to do with the P executed independently.
> Your claim "The HP is refuted" is false, you are spreading false information. (copyright?)

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.

It is affirmed that the above H does correctly determine the halt status
of its input. My source-code proves that H does correctly simulate its
input D and does correctly determine that D would never stop running
unless its simulation is aborted.

Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
(d) The full execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is shown in
Halt7_Sipser.txt
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/15/2022 9:38 AM, wij wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 22:16:41 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide on the
>>>>> actual behaviour the input represents.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>> You don't know what OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant.
>>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and acceptable than POOH.
>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work.
>
> Your work is "POOH Decider", nothing to do with the P executed independently.
> Your claim "The HP is refuted" is false, you are spreading false information. (copyright?)

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.

It is affirmed that the above H does correctly determine the halt status
of its input D.

This source-code proves that Sipser_H does correctly simulate its input
Sipser_D and does correctly determine that Sipser_D would never stop
running unless its simulation is aborted.

Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
(d) The full execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is shown in
Halt7_Sipser.txt
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/15/2022 9:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500
> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500
>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide
>>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt
>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know what
>>>>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant.
>>>>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention
>>>>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and
>>>>> acceptable than POOH.
>>>>
>>>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work.
>>>>
>>>> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this
>>>> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work:
>>>>
>>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
>>>>
>>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory
>>>>
>>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
>>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
>>>>
>>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> >> Hi!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original
>>>> >> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging
>>>> >> with Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.)
>>>> >
>>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then
>>>> > at least one person could correctly point out an error. So far
>>>> > no one has done that. Many people did point out their own false
>>>> > assumptions though.
>>>> >
>>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider* that
>>>> >> forks the simulation into two branches if the input calls
>>>> >> the halt decider as
>>>
>>> That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you will
>>> not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't stolen
>>> your work.
>>
>> You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is your
>> idea. This is academic theft.
>
> I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of simulating
> halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating halt decider.
>

Not citing me as the source of "simulating halt decider" is plagiarism.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:56:03 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/15/2022 9:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500
> > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500
> >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide
> >>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt
> >>>>>> decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You don't know what
> >>>>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant.
> >>>>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention
> >>>>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and
> >>>>> acceptable than POOH.
> >>>>
> >>>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work.
> >>>>
> >>>> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this
> >>>> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory
> >>>>
> >>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
> >>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>> >> Hi!
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important
> >>>> >> original solution to the halting problem until all of you
> >>>> >> stop engaging with Olcott and his non-solution to the
> >>>> >> halting problem.)
> >>>> >
> >>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect
> >>>> > then at least one person could correctly point out an
> >>>> > error. So far no one has done that. Many people did point
> >>>> > out their own false assumptions though.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider*
> >>>> >> that forks the simulation into two branches if the input
> >>>> >> calls the halt decider as
> >>>
> >>> That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you
> >>> will not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't
> >>> stolen your work.
> >>
> >> You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is
> >> your idea. This is academic theft.
> >
> > I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of simulating
> > halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating halt decider.
> >
>
> Not citing me as the source of "simulating halt decider" is
> plagiarism.

Simulation is not your idea so you deserve no such citation and your
so called simulating halt decider is no such thing as it fails to give
a correct halting decision for certain inputs, unlike my idea.

/Flibble

On 10/15/2022 10:02 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:56:03 -0500
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2022 9:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500
>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500
>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly decide
>>>>>>>>> on the actual behaviour the input represents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating halt
>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't know what
>>>>>>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are meant.
>>>>>>> You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's invention
>>>>>>> (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much brilliant and
>>>>>>> acceptable than POOH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this
>>>>>> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and comp.theory
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
>>>>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> >> Hi!
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important
>>>>>> >> original solution to the halting problem until all of you
>>>>>> >> stop engaging with Olcott and his non-solution to the
>>>>>> >> halting problem.)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect
>>>>>> > then at least one person could correctly point out an
>>>>>> > error. So far no one has done that. Many people did point
>>>>>> > out their own false assumptions though.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider*
>>>>>> >> that forks the simulation into two branches if the input
>>>>>> >> calls the halt decider as
>>>>>
>>>>> That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you
>>>>> will not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't
>>>>> stolen your work.
>>>>
>>>> You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is
>>>> your idea. This is academic theft.
>>>
>>> I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of simulating
>>> halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>
>> Not citing me as the source of "simulating halt decider" is
>> plagiarism.
>
> Simulation is not your idea so you deserve no such citation and your
> so called simulating halt decider is no such thing as it fails to give
> a correct halting decision for certain inputs, unlike my idea.
>
> /Flibble

This source-code proves that Sipser_H does correctly simulate its input
Sipser_D and Sipser_H does correctly determine that Sipser_D would never
stop running unless its simulation of Sipser_D is aborted.

Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
(d) The execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is shown in
Halt7_Sipser.txt
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 10:24:45 -0500
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:

> On 10/15/2022 10:02 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:56:03 -0500
> > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/15/2022 9:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:36:03 -0500
> >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/15/2022 9:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:16:37 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/15/2022 8:51 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, 15 October 2022 at 21:17:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> The Flibble Signaling Decider exists and does correctly
> >>>>>>>>> decide on the actual behaviour the input represents.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Only if you steal my criteria like you stole my simulating
> >>>>>>>> halt decider.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don't know what
> >>>>>>> OS/TM/simulator/logic/function/engineering/theory/... are
> >>>>>>> meant. You don't even know what "P halts" means. Flibble's
> >>>>>>> invention (Signaling Simulating Halt Decider) is much
> >>>>>>> brilliant and acceptable than POOH.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When he refers to my work as his own he is stealing my work.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A Google search of "simulating halt decider" shows me and this
> >>>>>> Flibble plagiarism reference to my work:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://comp.lang.cpp.narkive.com/anEWsoBv/halting-problem-proofs-refuted-flibble-signaling-decider-flibble-violates-my-copyright
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here is the original message from comp.lang.c++, and
> >>>>>> comp.theory
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider)
> >>>>>> [--Flibble violates my copyright--]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/24/2022 8:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> > On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>> >> Hi!
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important
> >>>>>> >> original solution to the halting problem until all of
> >>>>>> >> you stop engaging with Olcott and his non-solution to
> >>>>>> >> the halting problem.)
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was
> >>>>>> > incorrect then at least one person could correctly point
> >>>>>> > out an error. So far no one has done that. Many people
> >>>>>> > did point out their own false assumptions though.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >> I have an idea for a signaling *simulating halt decider*
> >>>>>> >> that forks the simulation into two branches if the input
> >>>>>> >> calls the halt decider as
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That message snippet does not show that I stole your work; you
> >>>>> will not be able to find a snippet that does because I haven't
> >>>>> stolen your work.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are claiming that the idea of a "simulating halt decider" is
> >>>> your idea. This is academic theft.
> >>>
> >>> I don't claim any such thing: I claim a SPECIFIC TYPE of
> >>> simulating halt decider is my idea: namely a SIGNALING simulating
> >>> halt decider.
> >>
> >> Not citing me as the source of "simulating halt decider" is
> >> plagiarism.
> >
> > Simulation is not your idea so you deserve no such citation and your
> > so called simulating halt decider is no such thing as it fails to
> > give a correct halting decision for certain inputs, unlike my idea.
> >
> > /Flibble
>
> This source-code proves that Sipser_H does correctly simulate its
> input Sipser_D and Sipser_H does correctly determine that Sipser_D
> would never stop running unless its simulation of Sipser_D is aborted.
>
> Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project) Sipser version.
> (a) x86utm operating system
> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within
> Halt7.c (d) The execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is
> shown in Halt7_Sipser.txt
> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip

I am sure the Good Professor would be mildly irritated by your use of
his name in your junk.

/Flibble

On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>
>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct:
>>>    If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>    of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>    correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
>>> paper.
>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>> presented to him.
>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>
>>
>> And what does he say about:
>
> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>
>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>
> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H
> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P)
> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
> computation.
>

Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>
>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's
>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my
>> copy to check it out.
>
> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that. His two
> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way.
> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas. However, H(P,P)
> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
>

If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0 No-Matter-What

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.

> His other suggestion is to write a reply that is "harsh, scathing and
> designed to make the writer hate you". I can't imagine Professor Sipser
> taking that option.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>>
>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>> looks correct:
>>>>      If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>      of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>      correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
>>>> paper.
>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>>> presented to him.
>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what does he say about:
>>
>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>
>>>       If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>>>       of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>       correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>       specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>
>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation.  Whatever H
>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant.  H(P,P)
>> returns 0 and P(P) halts.  0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>> computation.
>>
>
> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>

Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final
state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that
H(D) Does abort and return and answer.

What that sentence does NOT mean, if the input was used to use a
different decider that fails to be a decider but just correctly simulats
its input, like you are trying to make it mean.

YOU FAIL.

On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>
>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's
>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my
>>> copy to check it out.
>>
>> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that.  His two
>> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
>> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way.
>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas.  However, H(P,P)
>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
>>
>
> If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0  No-Matter-What

But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.

The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does it, and
since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D will halt.

Since THIS H is stipulated to return an answer, THIS D is show to halt.

Doesn't matter that this H doesn't do that, or can't show that.

>
> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>> His other suggestion is to write a reply that is "harsh, scathing and
>> designed to make the writer hate you".  I can't imagine Professor Sipser
>> taking that option.
>>
>

On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 5:58:35 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> writes:
> >
> >> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
> >>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct:
> >>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
> >>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
> >>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
> >>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
> >>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
> >>> paper.
> >>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
> >>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
> >>> presented to him.
> >>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
> >>>
> >>
> >> And what does he say about:
> >
> > Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
> >
> >> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
> >> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
> >> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
> >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
> >
> > You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
> > something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H
> > "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P)
> > returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
> > computation.
> >
>
> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?

Exactly. Since you are claiming that the answer to "Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?" is "No" and the answer to "Does this input halt?" is "Yes", it's clear you are making a mistake somewhere.

On 10/17/2022 6:59 AM, Paul N wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 5:58:35 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>
>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct:
>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
>>>>> paper.
>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>
>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>
>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>
>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H
>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P)
>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>> computation.
>>>
>>
>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>
> Exactly. Since you are claiming that the answer to "Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?" is "No" and the answer to "Does this input halt?" is "Yes", it's clear you are making a mistake somewhere.

Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly meeting the
Sipser approved criteria shown below.

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

Would D directly executed by main ever stop running?
is proven to be a different question as the execution trace of the code
below shown in Halt7_Sipser.txt linked below proves.

int Sipser_D(int (*M)())
{ if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
return 0;
return 1;
}

int main()
{ Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
}

*Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project)* Sipser version.
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
(d) The execution trace of Sipser_H applied to Sipser_D is shown in
Halt7_Sipser.txt
https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/2022 6:59 AM, Paul N wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 5:58:35 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>
>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph looks correct:
>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in this
>>>>> paper.
>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>
>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>
>>>> If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>> correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>
>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation. Whatever H
>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant. H(P,P)
>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts. 0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>> computation.
>>>
>>
>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>
> Exactly. Since you are claiming that the answer to "Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?" is "No" and the answer to "Does this input halt?" is "Yes", it's clear you are making a mistake somewhere.

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.

An alternative definition for a halt decider approved by MIT Professor
Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on the theory of
computation)
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295
is shown above and paraphrased below:

Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly meeting the
Sipser approved criteria shown above.

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>
>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>>> looks correct:
>>>>>      If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>      of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>      correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in
>>>>> this
>>>>> paper.
>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>
>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>
>>>>       If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>>>>       of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>       correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>       specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>
>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation.  Whatever H
>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant.  H(P,P)
>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts.  0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>> computation.
>>>
>>
>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>>
>
> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final
> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that
> H(D) Does abort and return and answer.

*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.

*A paraphrase of a portion of the above paragraph*
Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?

Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly meeting the
Sipser approved criteria shown above.

You don't have enough knowledge of the x86 language to understand the
proof on page 3.

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's
>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my
>>>> copy to check it out.
>>>
>>> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that.  His two
>>> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
>>> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way.
>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
>>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas.  However, H(P,P)
>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
>>>
>> If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0  No-Matter-What
>
> But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
> that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.

Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?

H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem -- the
one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but D(D)
would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly
determine this silly criterion (in this one case) so H is a POOH decider
(again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
is also undecidable in general).

> The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does it, and
> since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D will halt.

Right, but that's not the criterion that PO is using, is it? I don't
get what the problem is. Ever since the "line 15 commented out"
debacle, PO has been pulling the same trick: "D(D) only halts
because..." was one way he used to put it before finding a more tricky
wording. For years, the project has simply been to find words he can
dupe people with.

--
Ben.

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's
>>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't find my
>>>>> copy to check it out.
>>>>
>>>> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that.  His two
>>>> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
>>>> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way.
>>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
>>>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas.  However, H(P,P)
>>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
>>>>
>>> If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0  No-Matter-What
>>
>> But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
>> that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
>
> Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
>
> H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem

Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.

> -- the
> one no one cares about. D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but D(D)
> would not halt unless H stops the simulation. H /can/ correctly
> determine this silly criterion (in this one case) so H is a POOH decider

Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.

> (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
> is also undecidable in general).

I am only showing that a simulating halt decider defeats all of the
conventional halting problem proofs. I am not showing that is solves the
halting problem.

>> The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does it, and
>> since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D will halt.
>
> Right, but that's not the criterion that PO is using, is it? I don't
> get what the problem is. Ever since the "line 15 commented out"
> debacle, PO has been pulling the same trick: "D(D) only halts
> because..." was one way he used to put it before finding a more tricky
> wording. For years, the project has simply been to find words he can
> dupe people with.
>

Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
correctly simulated by H.

This would mean that a simulating halt decider does apply to the actual
halting problem proofs.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>>>> looks correct:
>>>>>>      If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>      of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>      correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced in
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>>
>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>>
>>>>>       If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>>>>>       of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>       correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>       specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>
>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation.  Whatever H
>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant.
>>>> H(P,P)
>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts.  0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>>> computation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>>>
>>
>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final
>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that
>> H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
>
> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
> 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.

Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY
predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.

Since the DEFINITION of "Correct Simulation" is a simulation that
matches the direct running to the machine, and the fact that D(D) will
return 1 since you have shown the H(D,D) return 0, the CORRECT
simulation of the input will halt, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for H to CORRRECT
prove that it doesn't

Since this has been shown to you before, it just shows that you are a liar.

>
> *A paraphrase of a portion of the above paragraph*
> Would D correctly simulated by H ever stop running if not aborted?
>
> Is proven on page 3 of this paper to be "no" thus perfectly meeting the
> Sipser approved criteria shown above.

Nope, all you have "proven" is that D(D) calls H(D,D) and H THINK that
this means it will be non-halting, when actually it proves the opposite.

It shows that H(D,D) WILL return 0, and thus D(D) WILL return 1

Note, the "Rule" you quote is totally unsupported, you have FAILED to
ever provide evidence for it, and it has been proven to be incorrret

>
> You don't have enough knowledge of the x86 language to understand the
> proof on page 3.
>
> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>
>

You are just prpoving you don't know what yop are talking about.

On 10/17/22 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 1:53 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't the "brushoff with implied agreement" a method to decrank one's
>>>>>> mailbox that was mentioned in Dudley's "The Trisectors"? Can't
>>>>>> find my
>>>>>> copy to check it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I think Dudley explicitly says not to do that.  His two
>>>>> recommendations are to be flattering while plainly pointing out the
>>>>> error in the end result without engaging with the argument in any way.
>>>>> For PO that would be "I see you have thought long and hard about this
>>>>> problem and you have come up with some ingenious ideas.  However,
>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>> == 0 is not the correct answer if P(P) is a halting computation."
>>>>>
>>>> If H(D,D) meets the criteria then H(D,D)==0  No-Matter-What
>>>
>>> But it does'nt meet the criteria, sincd it never correctly determines
>>> that the correct simulation of its input is non-halting.
>>
>> Are you dancing round the fact that PO tricked the professor?
>>
>> H(D,D) /does/ meet the criterion for PO's Other Halting problem
>
> Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
> correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
> correctly simulated by H.
>
>> -- the
>> one no one cares about.  D(D) halts (so H is not halt decider), but D(D)
>> would not halt unless H stops the simulation.  H /can/ correctly
>> determine this silly criterion (in this one case) so H is a POOH decider
>
> Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
> correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
> correctly simulated by H.

Right, and that correct simulation, to BE correct, needs to duplicte the
behavior of D(), which for this H is to return 1.

So, you don't have a correct simulation to use,

>
>> (again, for this one case -- PO is not interested in the fact the POOH
>> is also undecidable in general).
>
> I am only showing that a simulating halt decider defeats all of the
> conventional halting problem proofs. I am not showing that is solves the
> halting problem.

No, you are showing that you don't understand what you are saying.

>
>>> The correct simulation is the correct simulation who ever does it, and
>>> since D will halt when run, the correct simulation of D will halt.
>>
>> Right, but that's not the criterion that PO is using, is it?  I don't
>> get what the problem is.  Ever since the "line 15 commented out"
>> debacle, PO has been pulling the same trick: "D(D) only halts
>> because..." was one way he used to put it before finding a more tricky
>> wording.  For years, the project has simply been to find words he can
>> dupe people with.
>>
>
> Professor Sipser has agreed that a simulating halt decider would be
> correct to base its halt status definition on the behavior of D
> correctly simulated by H.
>
> This would mean that a simulating halt decider does apply to the actual
> halting problem proofs.
>

Yes, but STILL Need to answer based on the ACTUAL behavior of the
machine, since that is what a CORRECT simulation will show.

Since you H doesn't do that, it isn't correct.

FAIL.