On 10/17/2022 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>>>>>>  > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>>>>>>>  > (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would
>>>>>>>> affirm this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your
>>>>>>> misinterpreation of the criteria, not the actual one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has
>>>>>> resorted to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when
>>>>>> the fact that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one
>>>>>> case)...
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
>>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
>>>>
>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
>>>> criteria.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> You are just too dumb to understand.
>>>
>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation
>>> would do,
>>>
>>
>> *As always you lie about this*  *Troll head games*
>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
>
> And if H doesn't do a correct simulation, then your definition has no
> answer. PERIOD.

On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 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.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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> >>>>>>>> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
> >>>>>>>> > (in this one case)...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
> >>>>>>>> criteria.
> >>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm
> >>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation
> >>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
> >>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted
> >>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact
> >>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
> >>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
> >>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
> >>>>
> >>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
> >>>> criteria.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nope.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
> >>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Nope.
> >>>
> >>> You are just too dumb to understand.
> >>>
> >>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation
> >>> would do,
> >>>
> >> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games*
> >> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
> >> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
> >
> > Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function:
> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself.

On 10/17/22 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>  > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>>>>>>>>  > (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
>>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would
>>>>>>>>> affirm this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your
>>>>>>>> misinterpreation of the criteria, not the actual one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has
>>>>>>> resorted to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when
>>>>>>> the fact that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one
>>>>>>> case)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
>>>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
>>>>>
>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
>>>>> criteria.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> You are just too dumb to understand.
>>>>
>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT
>>>> simulation would do,
>>>>
>>>
>>> *As always you lie about this*  *Troll head games*
>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
>>
>> And if H doesn't do a correct simulation, then your definition has no
>> answer. PERIOD.
>
> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
>
> Maybe when I tell you this a few hundred more times you will actually
> notice all of the words.
>
>

On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>>>>>>>>>> (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm
>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation
>>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted
>>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact
>>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
>>>>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation
>>>>> would do,
>>>>>
>>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games*
>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
>>>
>>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function:
>> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself.
>
> Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response.
>

On 10/17/2022 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/22 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/17/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>  > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>>>>>>>>>  > (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would
>>>>>>>>>> affirm this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your
>>>>>>>>> misinterpreation of the criteria, not the actual one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has
>>>>>>>> resorted to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when
>>>>>>>> the fact that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one
>>>>>>>> case)...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
>>>>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D
>>>>>> does meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT
>>>>> simulation would do,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *As always you lie about this*  *Troll head games*
>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
>>>
>>> And if H doesn't do a correct simulation, then your definition has no
>>> answer. PERIOD.
>>
>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>  > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>  > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
>>
>> Maybe when I tell you this a few hundred more times you will actually
>> notice all of the words.
>>
>>
>
> Which isn't the question that H is supposed to ask, so you are admitting
> that you aren't doing the right problem.
>

On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
> >>>>>>>>>>> (in this one case)...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>> criteria.
> >>>>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm
> >>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation
> >>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
> >>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted
> >>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact
> >>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
> >>>>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
> >>>>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
> >>>>>> criteria.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
> >>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are just too dumb to understand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation
> >>>>> would do,
> >>>>>
> >>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games*
> >>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
> >>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
> >>>
> >>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function:
> >> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself.
> >
> > Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response.
> >
> It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt
> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria.

On 10/17/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm
>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation
>>>>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
>>>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted
>>>>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact
>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
>>>>>>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation
>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games*
>>>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
>>>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function:
>>>> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself.
>>>
>>> Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response.
>>>
>> It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt
>> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria.
>
> No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input,

On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (in this one case)...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> criteria.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation
> >>>>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
> >>>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted
> >>>>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact
> >>>>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
> >>>>>>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
> >>>>>>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
> >>>>>>>> criteria.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
> >>>>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation
> >>>>>>> would do,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games*
> >>>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
> >>>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function:
> >>>> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself.
> >>>
> >>> Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response.
> >>>
> >> It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt
> >> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria.
> >
> > No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input,
> One need not have an all knowing program to refute the single
> counter-example of all of the conventional proofs.

On 10/17/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted
>>>>>>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>>>>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
>>>>>>>>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
>>>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation
>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games*
>>>>>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
>>>>>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function:
>>>>>> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response.
>>>>>
>>>> It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt
>>>> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria.
>>>
>>> No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input,
>> One need not have an all knowing program to refute the single
>> counter-example of all of the conventional proofs.
>
> But it still needs to answer the same question.
>
>>> halt or not. It is impossible to build a piece of code that can determine that in all cases, and answering some other slightly related question doesn't change that.
>> All of the conventional proofs rely on this same "impossible"
>> input template, once the template is shown to be decidable
>> these undecidability proofs lose their entire basis.
>
> It is decidable, just not by the H built on it.

On 10/17/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:48:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:34:58 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 10:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 9:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 9:57:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 8:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that H can compute the Sipser approved non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always knew that every technically competent person would affirm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, he seems to be agreeing that H can copute your misinterpreation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the criteria, not the actual one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since he is still pointing out your errors, you claiming the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> endorcement is just another of your lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben does not actually point out any actual errors. Ben has resorted
>>>>>>>>>>>> to rhetoric instead of reasoning as he always does when the fact
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct has no correct rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ben points out many error.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just showing your self to be too stupid to understand them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, you claim it can, but the answer is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>>>>>>>> specify a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H
>>>>>>>>>>>> applies the Sipser approved criterion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that results,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The results are correct when measured against the Sipser approved
>>>>>>>>>> criteria.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ben agrees that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does
>>>>>>>>>> meet the Sipser approved non-halting criteria.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just too dumb to understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sipser requreis that H CORRECTLY determines what a CORRECT simulation
>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *As always you lie about this* *Troll head games*
>>>>>>>> It has never been about a correct simulation of D.
>>>>>>>> It has always been about a correct simulation of D by H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is why your H has no absolutely no bearing on the halting problem, as it's not computing the halting function:
>>>>>> All you can do is endlessly repeat yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because all you do is endlessly repeat yourself, so the same invalid statement gets the same response.
>>>>>
>>>> It is a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt
>>>> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria.
>>>
>>> No matter how you look at it, your H is not answering the required question: does any arbitrary piece of code, given a particular input,
>> One need not have an all knowing program to refute the single
>> counter-example of all of the conventional proofs.
>
> But it still needs to answer the same question.
>
>>> halt or not. It is impossible to build a piece of code that can determine that in all cases, and answering some other slightly related question doesn't change that.
>> All of the conventional proofs rely on this same "impossible"
>> input template, once the template is shown to be decidable
>> these undecidability proofs lose their entire basis.
>
> It is decidable, just not by the H built on it.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 3:37:02 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *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 a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt
> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria.

Professor Sipser has said that *if* the simulator *correctly* determines that the input would not halt, it would be correct to report that. He has *not* said that looking at the simulation is the *only* way to assess the question, nor has he said it is the *best* way to assess it. He certainly has not said that, in the situation of a discrepancy between the simulator and actual life, that the actual results should be junked in favour of those from the simulator. I would guess he would consider, as everyone else here seems to, that if the results produced by the simulator are different from what actually happens then the simulator is *incorrect*.

When challenged on this point before, many times, you have often posted a pile of traces and said that they are identical and so the simulator must be correct. Richard has pointed out many times where you are going wrong and you have never listened to him, so it seems a bit pointless pointing it out yet again, but I will try. The simulator doesn't have the intelligence to "know" for itself whether the code it is simulating will run forever, it looks for certain patterns which you believe indicate that the program will not end and reports if it sees one of these patterns. The program is incorrect in doing this, as can be clearly seen by the fact it says P(P) will not halt when you also claim that P(P) does. The problem is that the H being simulated will itself abort and so the program can end without the outermost H having to abort it. The reason why your simulator is wrong may be a bit tricky to follow (certainly you have never showed any signs of following it) but it is blatantly obvious that it must be wrong because it gives clearly the wrong results.

On 10/18/2022 7:55 AM, Paul N wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 3:37:02 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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 a verified fact that Sipser_H does correctly determine the halt
>> status of Sipser_D according to the Sipser approved criteria.
>
> Professor Sipser has said that *if* the simulator *correctly* determines that the input would not halt, it would be correct to report that.

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
> (in this one case)...

H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...

> He has *not* said that looking at the simulation is the *only* way to assess the question, nor has he said it is the *best* way to assess it. He certainly has not said that, in the situation of a discrepancy between the simulator and actual life, that the actual results should be junked in favour of those from the simulator. I would guess he would consider, as everyone else here seems to, that if the results produced by the simulator are different from what actually happens then the simulator is *incorrect*.

The actual code proves that the simulator is correct in that every line
of code of D that was simulated by H was specified by D.

>
> When challenged on this point before, many times, you have often posted a pile of traces and said that they are identical and so the simulator must be correct.

Richard has pointed out many times where you are going wrong and you
have never listened to him,

I say that the D simulated by H never stop unless aborted and Richard
deceptively twists these words by saying that some other different D
does stop if not aborted.

> so it seems a bit pointless pointing it out yet again, but I will try. The simulator doesn't have the intelligence to "know" for itself whether the code it is simulating will run forever, it looks for certain patterns which you believe indicate that the program will not end and reports if it sees one of these patterns.

Sipser_H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55 push ebp // Begin Sipser_D
[000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50 push eax // push Sipser_D
[000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51 push ecx // push Sipser_D
[000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call Sipser_H
Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped

Every competent software engineer will agree that the simulation of D by
H will not stop unless H aborts this simulation exactly meeting the
Sipser approved criterion.

> The program is incorrect in doing this, as can be clearly seen by the fact it says P(P) will not halt when you also claim that P(P) does.

None-the-less professor Sipser
author of the best selling book on the theory of computation
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295

agrees that H is correct to do this.

*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.

> The problem is that the H being simulated will itself abort and so the program can end without the outermost H having to abort it.

No this is factually incorrect
This is exactly the same as saying the a function called in infinite
recursion will eventually return to its caller.

> The reason why your simulator is wrong may be a bit tricky to follow (certainly you have never showed any signs of following it) but it is blatantly obvious that it must be wrong because it gives clearly the wrong results.

--
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 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?
>

Because Professor Sipser specifically approved this verbatim abstract:

<Sipser approved abstract>
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
paragraph is correct (he has not 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.
</Sipser approved abstract>

for use in this paper:

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

It seems implausible that I tricked professor Sipser.

> 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).
>

We can see in the above paragraph that Ben agrees that
H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)

--
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 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 -- 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.
>

I will keep posting this every day reminding people that Ben has agreed
that Sipser_H does correctly compute the halt status of Sipser_D
according to this criteria:

*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.

until someone like Andre gives me an accurate review of this paper.

*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem

--
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 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 -- 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

Ben has agreed that Sipser_H does correctly compute the halt status of
Sipser_D according to this criteria:

*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.

*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem

> (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?

*This is the criteria that I am using*

*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.

> 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 knows these things much deeper than learned-by-rote
from a textbook.

--
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 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 -- 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

Ben has agreed that Sipser_H does correctly compute the halt status of
Sipser_D according to this criteria:

*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.

*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem

> (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

Ben agrees that Richard is evaluating my work using the wrong criteria.

*This is the criteria that I am using*

*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.

> 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 knows these things much deeper than my learned-by-rote
from a textbook reviewers.

--
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 10/22/2022 7:19 AM, Paul N wrote:
> For those who don't follow comp.theory, I think it is worth pointing out that Ben is trying to deal with PO by encouraging no-one to reply to him. This probably explains the posts here claiming that "Ben agrees" with things it's quite clear he does not agree with,

*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*

These references are on comp.theory:

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)

*This is the "silly" criterion that Ben is referring to*

On 10/17/2022 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> *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 10/22/2022 7:19 AM, Paul N wrote:
> For those who don't follow comp.theory, I think it is worth pointing out that Ben is trying to deal with PO by encouraging no-one to reply to him. This probably explains the posts here claiming that "Ben agrees" with things it's quite clear he does not agree with,

*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*
*You are a liar or did not bother to pay attention*

These references are on comp.theory:

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)

*This is the "silly" criterion that Ben is referring to*

On 10/17/2022 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> *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 10/12/2022 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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*
>
>

<Sipser approved abstract>
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
paragraph is correct (he has not 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
</Sipser approved abstract>

to this paper:

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

Professor Sipser did not have time to review any other aspects of this
paper. Two of my friends each with masters degrees in computer science
have verified that H(D,D)==0 is computed correctly according to the
above criterion and the above criterion is correct.

*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 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?
>

  (a) 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 (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
  report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

Ben still denies that (b) is a necessary consequence of (a)
Ben does acknowledge that the (a) criteria is met:

> 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.
>

So when we realize that (b) really is a necessary consequence of (a) and
(a) is met then we know that H(D,D)==0 has been proven to be correct.

Is Ben flat out lying or is Ben lead astray by his bias against me?
I would say the latter.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/24/23 3:50 PM, 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?
>>
>
>   (a) 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 (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>   report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> Ben still denies that (b) is a necessary consequence of (a)
> Ben does acknowledge that the (a) criteria is met:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> So when we realize that (b) really is a necessary consequence of (a) and
> (a) is met then we know that H(D,D)==0 has been proven to be correct.
>

except that you don't establish (a) according to the definition used by
the person you asked.

FAIL

> Is Ben flat out lying or is Ben lead astray by his bias against me?
> I would say the latter.
>
>

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 -- 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.
>

Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must abort
the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
always correct to reject this input as non-halting.

--
Copyright 2023 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 2:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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 is a tautology. If H is correct, then it would be correct.
>
> So, what remains for you is to prove that H is correct. Most people here
> think that your H incorrectly determines that its incorrect simulation
> would never stop running. In that case, Michael Sipser's saying does not
> apply.
> So, this information of Michael Sipser does not bring us any further.
> You still have to prove that your H is correct, before you can use it.
> Up to now, nobody seems to accept your proof.
>

Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must abort
the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
always correct to reject this input as non-halting.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/12/2022 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 10/12/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/12/22 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>> looks correct:
>>
>> <quoted email to professor Sipser>
>> Here is what I would like to say:
>>
>> 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.
>> </quoted email to professor Sipser>
>>
>> <quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>> Looks ok. Thanks for checking.
>> </quoted reply from professor Sipser>
>>
>>> IF I drop by and ask him face to face, will he confirm this?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Would Professor Sipser agree that you have refuted his halting problem
> proof?
>
> If I understand this correctly, it does not support the idea that a
> general "simulating halt decider" can actually exist.
>
> In the above, let D be a program that may or may not halt, and let H be
> an observer who attempts to determine whether or not D halts.
> Concretely, let D be this C program or equivalent:
>
> int main(void) { while (1) { } }
>
> and I'll be H. I can observe D. I can simulate it until I get bored,
> which won't take long (one iteration, two iterations, three iterations,
> zzzzzzzzz). I can, while simulating it, conclude that it will never
> halt, abort the simulation, and report that it never halts. It wouldn't
> be difficult to automate the process in a way that works for this simple
> case.
>
> In other words, a halt decider that works correctly for *some* programs
> is entirely possible. Nobody disputes that, and the statement that you
> report Dr. Sipser made is consistent with that.
>
> What is impossible is a *general* halt decider that can report the halt
> status for *any* program.
>
> For example, it would be easy to write a program (assuming unbounded
> memory resources) that halts if and only if Goldbach's conjecture is
> false. If a general halt decider (simulating or not) existed, it could
> be applied to such a program and solve Goldbach's conjecture.
>
> (Goldbach's conjecture is that every even number greater than 2 is the
> sum of 2 prime numbers. It has been demonstrated for values up to
> 4*10^18, but not proven or disproven in general.)
>
> The part you seem to be handwaving over is *how* a simulating halt
> decider is able to determine, in *all* cases, that a computation does
> not halt. That is what has been proven to be impossible.
>
> (My characterization of "handwaving" might be unfair. I have not read
> everything you've posted here, and I have read very little of your
> writings elsewhere that you've cited.)
>
> Your premise is
>
> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation of D would
> never stop running unless aborted ...
>
> Of course the conclusion follows IF H does what you say. That's
> trivial. You would need to demonstrate that H can *always* do so, for
> any D.
>
> It would be useful, I suppose, to study your own writings that you've
> cited and point out precisely where you went wrong. I personally have
> neither the time nor the expertise to do so.
>
> But let me give you a simple challenge:
>
> Write or obtain a program that, assuming unbounded memory, will halt if
> and only if Goldbach's conjecture is false. Use whatever language is
> most convenient.
>
> Apply your simulating halt decider to this program. The result should
> be either "yes, it halts" or "no, it doesn't halt".
>
> Post here and tell us whether Goldbach's conjecture is true or false.
> Show your work.
>
> I believe you will be unable to do this.
>
> (It's theoretically possible that someone could prove or disprove
> Goldbach's conjecture without solving the halting problem. That would
> be very interesting, but I doubt that anyone here has the expertise to
> do so.)
>

Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must abort
the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
always correct to reject this input as non-halting.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/8/23 8:26 PM, 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 -- 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.
>>
>
> Whenever a simulating halt decider correctly predicts that it must abort
> the simulation of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
> always correct to reject this input as non-halting.
>

Nope, it is only correct to say the input is non-halting if the
resultant program is still non-halting, even if H does abort its simulation.

Remember, H does what it was programmed to do, so, becaue of your
intertwining of input and the decider, that statement is not true,
because to think of an H doing something different than what H actually
does is just a falsehood.

You are just stuck in the same no-win situation as H is, but you are
guilty of the ignrance, since you have volition, which H doesn't.