On 1/27/24 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-26 17:54:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>> computation textbooks.
>>
>> Those books say that there is no halt decider, simulating or
>> otherwise.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> Only because they have not caught up with my brand new
> idea of a simulating halt decider. Professor Sipser
> only reviewed the key element of my proof he never
> got to the point where he understood recursive simulation.
>
>
>

Which isn't based on the correct definition of either "Correct
Simulation" or "Halting Decider".

In Computation Theory, the only thing that a "Correct Simulation" (the
way you are using it) is a recreation of the exact behavior defined by
the direct running of the input.

Since D(D) does reach a final state, any simulation that implies that it
didn't is just not correct;

And Halting, as you even quote, is based on the actual behavior of the
direct execution of the machine described by the input. Yours doesn't.
Now, if the simulation ACTUALLY WAS CORRECT, then it would be, but it is
impossible to base a Halt Decider solely on "Correct Simulation" as BY
DEFINITION a non-halting input takes unbounded steps to simulate, but a
Decider must answer in bounded time.

You are just working on POOP.

On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/27/24 00:04, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>>> Is not actually true at all
>>> Yes it is
>>
>> False presuppositions are never actually true
>
> No they aren't.
>
> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>  in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
> is not a false presupposition.
>

It falsely presumes that there are:
billion ton elephants in the middle of my living room.

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

On 1/27/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/27/24 00:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>>>> Is not actually true at all
>>>> Yes it is
>>>
>>> False presuppositions are never actually true
>>
>> No they aren't.
>>
>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>> is not a false presupposition.
>
> It falsely presumes that there are:
> billion ton elephants in the middle of my living room.
>
No it doesn't.

On 1/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/27/24 00:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>>>> Is not actually true at all
>>>> Yes it is
>>>
>>> False presuppositions are never actually true
>>
>> No they aren't.
>>
>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>> is not a false presupposition.
>>
>
> It falsely presumes that there are:
> billion ton elephants in the middle of my living room.
>

IF A then B does NOT presume that A is true.

All A are B does not presume that there exists any A

These are fundamental rules of logic.

Yes, there are some alternate version of categorical logic where the
Universal Qualifier include an assumption of existance, but the standard
logic does not.