On Friday, 14 October 2022 at 00:18:03 UTC+8, philipw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:38:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> > On 10/12/2022 10:07 PM, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:34:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> > >> On 10/12/2022 9:09 PM, Philip White wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 10:01:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> > >>>> On 10/12/2022 8:51 PM, Philip White wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-4, 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*
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> > >>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Peter,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I read your paper. The problem is, the machine that you specified might be able to tell that this is the "provably non-halting Turing machine" that you specified...the H machine might have its exact C or TM-indexing source code recognized by the machine D that could be re-coded (your source code for D would just loop forever in your paper), but the Halting Problem is to decide all instances of the halting problem, not just one such instance. The key issue is, if you had a set of, say, one million halting problem instances, and a database of correct answers, you *could* write a TM that would decide them all correctly...you could just look up the source code in the database and determine if the algorithm is provably non-halting, or you could simulate it until it is finished running and conclude that it is halting. The issue is, the Halting Problem is about all, countably infinitely many instances of the Halting problem...all Turing machines and all (let's say) binary inputs. Turing's proof showed that there is no algorithm that achieves this.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about this. In practice, there are very good algorithms that are "almost completely correct" for the Halting Problem, but such algorithms are very difficult to devise, and I would not share mine...it is very valuable. At the same time, there is a priori proof, based on very reasonable assumptions, that, based on deductive reasoning and simple logical conventions, there is no single algorithm that solves *all* Halting Problem instances correctly.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Again, please let me know if you have more questions; I have a few weeks to answer, and I understand your motives a little better for posting about this...I have a mental health condition and had thought you were conducting an elaborate satire previously when I wrote back to you. (I think things like that a lot when I have health issues, but I think I get you more clearly now...you seem sincere.)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> > >>>> Thanks for your review.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> You're welcome.
> > >>>
> > >>>> ... It does this by correctly construing all of the
> > >>>> conventional "impossible" inputs as specifying the recursive simulation
> > >>>> non-halting behavior pattern.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Which inputs are impossible? Do you mean inputs that are impossible to decide
> > >> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem
> > >> of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
> > >> program and an input, whether the program will finish running,
> > >> or continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
> > >> general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible
> > >> program-input pairs cannot exist.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, that's exactly right. The key is, "arbitrary" is a word that mathematicians use to mean that "it can be any element from the set." So, if someone writes, "Fix an arbitrary x in the set S such that P(x) is true," where P is some property, then that could be re-written as the logically equivalent statement, "For all x in S, P(x) is true." That is why the Halting Problem proof applies to *all* of the Turing machines in the set of all Turing machines.
> > >
> > >
> > >> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
> > >> "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own
> > >> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
> > >> what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case*
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how you defined "pathological," but yes, everything you've said so far is exactly correct.
> > >
> > Wikipedia just explained how they defined pathological and then I
> > provided the pathological source code below.
> > > -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> // P does the opposite of whatever H decides
> > >> void P(ptr x)
> > >> {
> > >> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> > >> if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P) reports that its input halts
> > >> HERE: goto HERE; // P loops and never halts
> > >> return; // else P halts
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> int main()
> > >> {
> > >> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> H recognizes the recursive simulation of P using the same criteria that
> > >> it uses to recognize this:
> > >>
> > >> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> > >> {
> > >> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> correctly, i.e., pair <M,I> such that M,I doesn't halt (any halting pair
> > >> can be decided via direct simulation)? You say that these inputs are
> > >> "construed" as "specifying the recursive simulation non-halting behavior
> > >> pattern"...the problem is, how will you do this? In order to somehow
> > >> rebut the halting problem proof, you would need to have a specific
> > >> algorithm that solves the halting problem every time. If you can't
> > >> produce that algorithm, it is unlikely that you have a correct proof..
> > >> It's like if you claimed P = NP non-constructively; either you must
> > >> produce a correct algorithm that works (and prove that it works, which
> > >> is often not all that hard), or present a non-constructive proof, where
> > >> you present a deductive reasoning argument that the algorithm *must*
> > >> exist. Vaguely stating something about construing some things as other
> > >> things is not a proof. If you have an intuition about it, that might be
> > >> neat, but you need to be specific and write something that can be
> > >> construed as a formal proof--or shorthand for it--to get accepted.
> > >>>
> > >>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has just validated my original notion of a
> > >>>> simulating halt decider.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, Michael Sipser is an authority on TCS.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
> > >>
> > >> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> > >> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> > >> Arthur Schopenhauer
> > --
> > Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
> >
> > "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> > Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> > Arthur Schopenhauer
> OK, so this article?:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathology
>
> Did you indicate that pathological is essentially "progressing?" If you could explain how your algorithm is somehow pathological, that would help people to understand if you claim to have a specific argument establishing that the Halting Problem proof is incorrect.
>
> If you would provide more detail, I could give more analytical feedback on your idea...I have a very good background in math, and I know CS too. I can stay with this for now and keep trying to help...I have plenty of time and can try to go back and forth and explain and/or debate issues with your algorithm, if you're willing to get more deeply into it. It sounds like you have sort of a "perimeter defense" up and might be "testing" people to see if they will accept your initial claims. If you are willing to accept the possibility that I might not agree with your initial claims but will still explain the deeper aspects of your approach, according to me, then I would encourage you to keep asking me to help analyze your idea.
>
> I won't have unlimited time in the future, but I do have lots of time now..
>
> -Philip White (philipw...@gmail.com)

On 10/13/22 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>
>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to
>>>>> authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the
>>>>> form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of
>>>>> argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments,
>>>>> the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously. Fallacious
>>>>> examples of using the appeal include: ⁕cases where the authority
>>>>> is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>
>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>
>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as the
>>> opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>
>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>
>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is sound
>> using facts and logic in your own words.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified
> expert in the field is inductively sound.

Except that the field you are talking aobut is not subject to that form
of Inductiove Reasoning.

Note, the defintion of Inductive reasoning:

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a body of
observations is considered to derive a general principle.[1] It consists
of making broad generalizations based on specific observations.[2]
Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. If the
premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain;
in contrast, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is
probable, based upon the evidence given.

Thus, inductive reasoning does not PROVE, but just provides evidence.

>
> 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.

And since your H doesn't CORRECTLY DETERMINE that its simulated D would
never stop running, that statement doesn't apply.

Your arguement that tries to show it is INVALID because it changes the
input.

>
> When one accepts this definition of a simulating halt decider then my
> code shows that H correctly determines the halt status of D.
>
> When one rejects that definition of a simulating halt decider then my
> proof loses its required basis.
>

NO, when you reject the definition of correct simulation, your arguement
just falls appart.

You are just proving your ignorance of everything you are talking about.

On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>
>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>
>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified
>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>
>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>> authority is.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery is
> just as good as going to a brain surgeo

I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.

So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.

>
> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be proof
> that am correct.

Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
actually corret.

>
> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed with
> me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.

Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said
they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.

>
> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough
> credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same single
> point of agreement.
>

Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the
errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have.

They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he
doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown to
be wrong, and don't actually have support.

The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
understand what a correct simulation is.

FAIL.

On 10/13/22 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/22 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/22 10:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> I emailed him to let him know what PO is doing.  I don't want to
>>>>> share a
>>>>> private conversation, but let's just say the exchange went exactly as
>>>>> you would expect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I don't need to drop by campus and talk to him?
>>>
>>>
>>> Go ahead and talk to him, get him to spend 15 minutes on my 1.5 page
>>> paper. He can skip page 2. The only thing they he does not quite
>>> fully understand is the recursive simulation that I demonstrate on
>>> page 1.
>>>
>>> The first half of page 1 is simply my quotes of his words. He only
>>> really needs to focus on the bottom half of page 1.
>>>
>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, I do't need to talk to him to try to "convince" him of something
>> that is incorrect.
>>
>
> *Professor Sipser has agreed with this*
> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> Thus negating your only objection.
>

And sincd H doesn't DO a correct simulation, as the term is commonly
known, the statement doesn't apply.

Since H doesn't actually correctly determine that teh correct simulation
of its input would never stop, the statement doesn't apply.

Your H has determined that a DIFFERENT H, making a DIFFERENT D can be
shown to ot halt, so it is only via invlid logic that you are applyig
the statment.

He likely missed that you said "Its" instead of "the", or he was
presuming the normal usage of this phase, which means that if THIS
INSTANCE (and ONLY this instance) was changed to not abort, then the
results are shown, note, this SPECIFICALLY means that the copy of H that
D calls is not change to not abort.

You are just using wrong definitions and showing your stupidity.

FAIL.

On 10/13/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 10:54 AM, Python wrote:
>> Peter Olcott, demented crank, wrote:
>> ..
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed with this*
>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>> sigh... he correctly agreed with a tautology "if it *correctly*
>> determine whatever then it would be correct to report it".
>>
>> He did so to get rid of the annoying crank you are. He should
>> have guessed that your will use this dishonestly.
>>
>> This cannot support your idiotic claim that H reporting P
>> to be non-halting while it is obvious that P is halting,
>> from its very definition.
>
> Professor Sipser agreed that the behavior of the input D correctly
> simulated by H is the correct behavior to measure.
>

Presumably based on H actually doing a correct simulation of D.
Since H doesn't, and it looks a a correct simulation of a DIFFERENT
input, the statement doesn't hold.

FAIL.

On 10/13/22 2:56 PM, 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."
>>
>> His other suggestion is to write a reply that is "harsh, scathing and
>> designed to make the writer hate you".  I can't imagine Professor Sipser
>> taking that option.
>>
>
> When we apply the Sipser approved criteria then H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>
> *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.
>
>

Nope, because you H doesn't do a correct simulation that shows that the
input is non-halting.

It never actually proves that the input WILL be non-halting with the H
that D callsbeing this actual H, which WILL abort its own simulation if
this one does.

You only prove that if H doesn't EVER abort its simulation, then the
input is non-halting, and if H is that, then it CAN'T actually abort, or
it breaks the requirements of the logic.

FAIL.

On 10/13/22 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 2:24 PM, 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 is a tautology. If H is correct, then it would be correct.
>>
>> It's not exactly a tautology.  H reporting based on whether "its correct
>> simulation of D never stops" would be a trivial truism, but with the
>> added "would" and "unless" the statement is, at best, a vague
>> hypothetical.  However, we all know what PO means by this deceptive
>> wording because his ruse has been laid bare many times: it's about H
>> determining the behaviour of a D constructed from a different H (with
>> "line 15 commented out" in PO's most explicit confession).
>>
>>> So, what remains for you is to prove that H is correct.
>>
>> What?  No!  What remains is for everybody to point out that H(P,P) == 0
>> is incorrect because P(P) is a halting computation.
>
> It is only the behavior of the input P correctly simulated by H that is
> the correct basis for a halt status decision by H.

And thus your H can't give an answer, as H never proves that its input
is non-halting when D is built on THIS H, which acts the same way,
because if it thinks it is non-halting, then it is halting.

>
>> Why do you want to
>> encourage PO to prove that H gives the wrong answer?  We know it does.
>> I'll take his word that it does as sufficient evidence that he's wrong.
>>
>

On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>
>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified
>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>
>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>> authority is.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery is
>> just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>
> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>
> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>
>>
>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>> proof that am correct.
>
> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
> actually corret.
>
>>
>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>
> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said
> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>
>>
>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough
>> credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same single
>> point of agreement.
>>
>
> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the
> errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have.
>

All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one accepts
the notion of a simulating halt decider.

*Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he
> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown to
> be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>

I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.

> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
> understand what a correct simulation is.
>
> FAIL.

A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
This nuance has been our key sticking point.

Another reviewer on another forum was shocked that anyone ever disagreed
with the obvious tautology.

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

wij wrote:
...
> Don't know why that wiki mentions '"pathological" program P'.
> olcott nearly misinterprets everything he reads according to his like.
> Now, he just got an obvious chance to "INTENTIONALLY misinterpret".
>
> Given a program P, what is (how to decide) THE CORRECT answer that P halts or not?
> What would you say?

So true. Olcott will make you agree that an even prime number greater
that 3 is even in order to, then, turn this into supporting the claim
that exists an even number greater than 3 exists.

This is properly disgusting behavior. The more you read him, the
more you want to puke.

Olcott is going so far in shell games and obfuscation that it is
not enough to consider him as stupid and incompetent (what he is,
anyway), but a dishonest asshole to begin with.

Ben is right, only two lines suffice as an answer to this psychopath
bigot:

1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt
2. P(P) does halt.

End of Story. 18 years of nonsense.

On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified
>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>
>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>>> authority is.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery is
>>> just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>
>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>
>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>
>>>
>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>> proof that am correct.
>>
>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>> actually corret.
>>
>>>
>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>
>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said
>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>
>>>
>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough
>>> credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same single
>>> point of agreement.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the
>> errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have.
>>
>
> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one accepts
> the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>
> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.

Yours doesn't do this.

>
>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he
>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown to
>> be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>
>
> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.

You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your final
conclusion?

Yes, put that note in.

>
>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
>> understand what a correct simulation is.
>>
>> FAIL.
>
> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
> This nuance has been our key sticking point.

And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
actual behavior of the direct execution of D.

THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.

H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
PERIOD.

>
> Another reviewer on another forum was shocked that anyone ever disagreed
> with the obvious tautology.
>

Because you are pointing out the point that they are missing, which is
because the error is actually that you have the wrong defintion of a
corrct simuation, so it doesn't show in that statement, only when you
apply it.

Since your arguement isn't actually based on a correct simulation, that
statement doesn't actually apply.

Remember, for a Turing machine, the only defintion of a correct
simulation includes that it is complete, there is no such thing as a
correct partial simulation.

So, you logic still is wrong.

FAIL.

On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified
>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery
>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>
>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>
>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>
>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>> actually corret.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>
>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said
>>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough
>>>> credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same
>>>> single point of agreement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the
>>> errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have.
>>>
>>
>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>
>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>
> Yours doesn't do this.
>
>>
>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he
>>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown
>>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>
>>
>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>
> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your final
> conclusion?
>
> Yes, put that note in.
>
>>
>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
>>> understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>
> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.

This is proven to be false once every detail is completely specified
such that false assumptions are made impossible.

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
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 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified
>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery
>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>
>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>
>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>
>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>> actually corret.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>
>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said
>>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is enough
>>>> credibility to get other qualified experts to review this same
>>>> single point of agreement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see the
>>> errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like we have.
>>>
>>
>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>
>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>
> Yours doesn't do this.
>
>>
>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he
>>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown
>>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>
>>
>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>
> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your final
> conclusion?
>
> Yes, put that note in.
>
>>
>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
>>> understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>
> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>
> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>
> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
> PERIOD.

*When you deny this you deny a tautology*
When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.

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

Le 14/10/2022 à 03:19, olcott a écrit :
> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified
>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery
>>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>
>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>>
>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>> actually corret.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said
>>>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like
>>>> we have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>
>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>
>>>
>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he
>>>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown
>>>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>
>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>> final conclusion?
>>
>> Yes, put that note in.
>>
>>>
>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
>>>> understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>
>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>
>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>
>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>> PERIOD.
>
> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.

1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt
2. P(P) does halt.

On 10/13/22 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified
>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery
>>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>
>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>>
>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>> actually corret.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said
>>>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like
>>>> we have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>
>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>
>>>
>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he
>>>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown
>>>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>
>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>> final conclusion?
>>
>> Yes, put that note in.
>>
>>>
>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
>>>> understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>
>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>
> This is proven to be false once every detail is completely specified
> such that false assumptions are made impossible.
>

WRONG. A sample program can't change a definition. You are just showing
your stupidity.

> 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
> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
>

And this program shows that P(P) or D() will Halt and H(P,P) / H(D) will
say they don't, so shows that H is WRONG.

Thus showing even more your stupidity.

YOU FAIL.

You just don't know what the words mean, and so are blathering falsehoods.

On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a qualified
>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery
>>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>
>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>>
>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>> actually corret.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they said
>>>> they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like
>>>> we have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>
>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>
>>>
>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that he
>>>> doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still shown
>>>> to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>
>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>> final conclusion?
>>
>> Yes, put that note in.
>>
>>>
>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
>>>> understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>
>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>
>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>
>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>> PERIOD.
>
> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>
>

No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.

A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of the
input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.

SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.

THEN You H goes off and makes an INCORRECT operation assuming that H(D)
won't return while we see that H(D) does return 0, so it makes an
INCORRECT simulation of that step.

You just are forgetting that code of H is part of the program D,
apparently because you don't understand that you are working on
"Programs" and not just C-Functions which don't actually map to anything
in computation theory.

FAIL.

On 10/13/2022 8:44 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 14/10/2022 à 03:19, olcott a écrit :
>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery
>>>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>
>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>>>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like
>>>>> we have.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>
>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that
>>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still
>>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>
>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>> final conclusion?
>>>
>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
>>>>> understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>
>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>
>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>
>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>> PERIOD.
>>
>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>
> 1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt
> 2. P(P) does halt.

On Friday, 14 October 2022 at 08:50:35 UTC+8, Python wrote:
> wij wrote:
> ..
> > Don't know why that wiki mentions '"pathological" program P'.
> > olcott nearly misinterprets everything he reads according to his like.
> > Now, he just got an obvious chance to "INTENTIONALLY misinterpret".
> >
> > Given a program P, what is (how to decide) THE CORRECT answer that P halts or not?
> > What would you say?
> So true. Olcott will make you agree that an even prime number greater
> that 3 is even in order to, then, turn this into supporting the claim
> that exists an even number greater than 3 exists.
>
> This is properly disgusting behavior. The more you read him, the
> more you want to puke.

Understand what you mean. Olcott can fabricate various kind of reason for his
claim (paten) to be true. He can even cheat his bible with no trouble.

> Olcott is going so far in shell games and obfuscation that it is
> not enough to consider him as stupid and incompetent (what he is,
> anyway), but a dishonest asshole to begin with.
>
> Ben is right, only two lines suffice as an answer to this psychopath
> bigot:
>
> 1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt
> 2. P(P) does halt.
>
> End of Story. 18 years of nonsense.

It took lots of efforts for olcott to say so explicitly, he used to be vague about his reasoning.
By now, he changed "P halts" to mean the "status dedicded by POOH", nothing
to do with P(P) being executed independently. So, the two lines you listed
are 'invalid', no rebuttal, to him.

On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who the
>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain surgery
>>>>>> is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>
>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field agreed
>>>>>> with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just like
>>>>> we have.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>
>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that
>>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still
>>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>
>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>> final conclusion?
>>>
>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you don;t
>>>>> understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>
>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>
>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>
>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>> PERIOD.
>>
>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>
>>
>
> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>
> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of the
> input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>
> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.

On 10/13/22 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 8:44 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 14/10/2022 à 03:19, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just
>>>>>> like we have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>>>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>
>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that
>>>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still
>>>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>>
>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>>> final conclusion?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>
>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>
>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>
>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>> PERIOD.
>>>
>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>
>> 1. Given Olcott's H alleged halt-decider H(P,P)=0 i.e. P(P) does not halt
>> 2. P(P) does halt.
>
> It can be verified two different ways that H simulates D correctly and
> that D correctly simulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>
> Bingo !!!
>
>
>

On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same weight as
>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your argument is
>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter who
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not be
>>>>>>> proof that am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just
>>>>>> like we have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>>>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>
>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that
>>>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still
>>>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>>
>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>>> final conclusion?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>
>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>
>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>
>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>> PERIOD.
>>>
>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>>
>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of
>> the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>
>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>
> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared to
> the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>
> int D(ptr2 M)
> {
>   if ( H(M, M) )
>     return 0;
>   return 1;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
> }
>
> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of  its correct
> simulation of D.  H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely recursive
> simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>
> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
> simulation of D and returns 0.
>

On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>> who the
>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not
>>>>>>>> be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review this
>>>>>>>> same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all see
>>>>>>> the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors, just
>>>>>>> like we have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that the
>>>>> CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser that
>>>>>>> he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are still
>>>>>>> shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>>>> final conclusion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>
>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>
>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>>>
>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of
>>> the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>
>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>
>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared to
>> the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>>
>> int D(ptr2 M)
>> {
>>    if ( H(M, M) )
>>      return 0;
>>    return 1;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>> }
>>
>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of  its correct
>> simulation of D.  H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely recursive
>> simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>>
>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>
>
> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>

On 10/13/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>>> who the
>>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not
>>>>>>>>> be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what is
>>>>>>>> actually corret.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review
>>>>>>>>> this same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all
>>>>>>>> see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors,
>>>>>>>> just like we have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that
>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser
>>>>>>>> that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are
>>>>>>>> still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with your
>>>>>> final conclusion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show the
>>>>>> actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>>>>
>>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation of
>>>> the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>>
>>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>>
>>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared
>>> to the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>>>
>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>> {
>>>    if ( H(M, M) )
>>>      return 0;
>>>    return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>> }
>>>
>>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of  its correct
>>> simulation of D.  H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely
>>> recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>>>
>>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
>>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>>
>>
>> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>>
>
> Haven't you already agreed to this?

On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/13/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>>>> who the
>>>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would not
>>>>>>>>>> be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what
>>>>>>>>> is actually corret.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember, they
>>>>>>>>> said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your results.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review
>>>>>>>>>> this same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all
>>>>>>>>> see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors,
>>>>>>>>> just like we have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as one
>>>>>>>> accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that
>>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser
>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you are
>>>>>>>>> still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with
>>>>>>> your final conclusion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show
>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the word.
>>>>>
>>>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation
>>>>> of the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>>>
>>>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>>>
>>>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared
>>>> to the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>>>>
>>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>>> {
>>>>    if ( H(M, M) )
>>>>      return 0;
>>>>    return 1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of  its correct
>>>> simulation of D.  H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely
>>>> recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>>>>
>>>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
>>>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>>>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>>>
>>
>> Haven't you already agreed to this?
>
> To what?
>
>> You can see that unless H aborts its correct simulation of D that D
>> would never stop running.
>>
>> You can also see that this meets the *now affirmed correct*
>> "D would never stop running unless aborted"
>> criterion measure provided above.
>>
>
> Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one that never
> aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D based on it is non-halting.
>

On 10/13/22 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't matter
>>>>>>>>>>>> who the
>>>>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would
>>>>>>>>>>> not be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what
>>>>>>>>>> is actually corret.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember,
>>>>>>>>>> they said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE your
>>>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that is
>>>>>>>>>>> enough credibility to get other qualified experts to review
>>>>>>>>>>> this same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all
>>>>>>>>>> see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors,
>>>>>>>>>> just like we have.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as
>>>>>>>>> one accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>>>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that
>>>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser
>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you
>>>>>>>>>> are still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include his
>>>>>>>>> agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to indicate
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with
>>>>>>>> your final conclusion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed to.
>>>>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show
>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the
>>>>>> word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation
>>>>>> of the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace compared
>>>>> to the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern that it uses.
>>>>>
>>>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>>>> {
>>>>>    if ( H(M, M) )
>>>>>      return 0;
>>>>>    return 1;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of  its correct
>>>>> simulation of D.  H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely
>>>>> recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator ...
>>>>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>>>>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Haven't you already agreed to this?
>>
>> To what?
>>
>>> You can see that unless H aborts its correct simulation of D that D
>>> would never stop running.
>>>
>>> You can also see that this meets the *now affirmed correct*
>>> "D would never stop running unless aborted"
>>> criterion measure provided above.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one that never
>> aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D based on it is
>> non-halting.
>>
>
> Quoted from above.
> >>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
> >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>
> The source-code proves that the simulation is correct and that H
> correctly predicts that its correctly simulated input would never stop
> running unless aborted.

On 10/13/2022 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/13/22 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/13/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/22 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:47 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:46:22 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:39:41 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 5:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 1:03:17 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 2:32 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are attempting to use the argument from authority.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Argument from authority, also authoritative argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes of argument from authority can constitute strong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallaciously. Fallacious examples of using the appeal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⁕cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.definitions.net/definition/argument+from+authority
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a loser. My opinion is just as good as Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And likewise your opinion about brain surgery is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of the world's best brain surgeons ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion about brain surgery is just as good as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser's.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably yet your opinion** about the theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably not even in the ballpark of carrying the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opinion of Professor Sipser.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ** and everyone else here: Ben, Andre, Mike, Kaz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Prove your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound using facts and logic in your own words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have already shown that and appeal to the authority of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expert in the field is inductively sound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter who the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That would mean that going to your garbage man about brain
>>>>>>>>>>>> surgery is just as good as going to a brain surgeo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don;t know many Brain Surgons that Mathematically PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>> statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are just in the wrong form of logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If everyone in the universe agreed with me then this would
>>>>>>>>>>>> not be proof that am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it doesn;t matter what everyone think, it matters what
>>>>>>>>>>> is actually corret.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If a universal consensus of all of the experts in the field
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed with me then this would be strong evidence that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, so one person giving conditioned support (remember,
>>>>>>>>>>> they said they didn't look at it in detail) doesn;t PROVE
>>>>>>>>>>> your results.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That one qualified expert in the field agrees with me that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is enough credibility to get other qualified experts to
>>>>>>>>>>>> review this same single point of agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you might get some more to look at it, and they will all
>>>>>>>>>>> see the errors we have pointed out and show you those errors,
>>>>>>>>>>> just like we have.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of these "errors" have been correctly refuted as soon as
>>>>>>>>>> one accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to this definition of halt decider*
>>>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>>>>>>>>> would be correct for H to abort this simulation and report
>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, he did not accept that a "Simulating Halt Decider" has some
>>>>>>>>> different measure of success. It needs to CORRECTLY detect that
>>>>>>>>> the CORRECT simulation of the input would not halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yours doesn't do this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They ARE errors. It sounds like Ben confirmed with Mr Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't agree with your ultimate conclusion, so you
>>>>>>>>>>> are still shown to be wrong, and don't actually have support.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I already knew that and when I asked him if I could include
>>>>>>>>>> his agreement as the abstract of my paper I made sure to
>>>>>>>>>> indicate that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You KNOW that there are errors and that he doesn't agree with
>>>>>>>>> your final conclusion?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, put that note in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is you misinterpret your own stateent because you
>>>>>>>>>>> don;t understand what a correct simulation is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of D by H is what Professor Sipser agreed
>>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>>> This nuance has been our key sticking point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And a correct simulation of D by H BY DEFINITION needs to show
>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the direct execution of D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THat is the DEFINITION of the correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H doesn't get that, so it isn't doing a correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
>>>>>>>> When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
>>>>>>>> matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
>>>>>>>> specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, just shows that you are not understanding the meaning of the
>>>>>>> word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A "Correct Simulation" of just N steps isn't a correct simulation
>>>>>>> of the input, but only of tghe first N steps of that input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SO, all you had shown is that D doesn't halt in those first N steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rest can be inferred from this partial execution trace
>>>>>> compared to the verifiably correct non-halting behavior pattern
>>>>>> that it uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int D(ptr2 M)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    if ( H(M, M) )
>>>>>>      return 0;
>>>>>>    return 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of  its
>>>>>> correct simulation of D.  H finds that D remains stuck in
>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its
>>>>>> simulation of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) D calls H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>>> (b) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>>> (c) that calls a simulated H that simulates D with an x86 emulator
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Until the executed H recognizes this repeating state, aborts its
>>>>>> simulation of D and returns 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Excpet that since H DOES abort is simulation, the ACTUL behavior is:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Haven't you already agreed to this?
>>>
>>> To what?
>>>
>>>> You can see that unless H aborts its correct simulation of D that D
>>>> would never stop running.
>>>>
>>>> You can also see that this meets the *now affirmed correct*
>>>> "D would never stop running unless aborted"
>>>> criterion measure provided above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one that
>>> never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D based on it is
>>> non-halting.
>>>
>>
>> Quoted from above.
>>  >>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>  >>>>>>>> of D would never stop running unless aborted, then it
>>
>> The source-code proves that the simulation is correct and that H
>> correctly predicts that its correctly simulated input would never stop
>> running unless aborted.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> YOu are just too stupid to see yor error, as you have proved.
>
> You have shown that a DIFFERENT D, built on an H that doesn't abort its
> simulatiion doesn't halt.
>
> Your program can show that the D built on the H that anwers H(D,D) does
> Halt.
>
> Thus, BY THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM, H is wrong.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> That you will not bother to look at this code is not my fault:
>>
>> *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
>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_10_08.zip
>>
>>
>
> Right, and that program shows that D(D) Halts, thus the CORRECT
> Simulation of it, done by ANYTHING that does a actual correct simultion
> of it, which does NOT include the H that it calls, since that has been
> defined a one of the H's that returns 0 from H(D,D), will halt.
>
> You are just proving your stupidity.
>
> FAIL.