XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
On 10/17/2022 3:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:31:41 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
*The PO-halting function is now Sipser approved*
No it's not, because he used the actual meaning of the words and not
your weasel-worded definitions.
PO's actions are outrageous. It's one thing to go insulting the likes
of me -- I was foolish enough to try to reason with him -- but dragging Professor Sipser into this nonsense is unconscionable.
Whatever PO may now claim has been "approved", Sipser thought he was
agreeing to some minor remark. In no way does me endorse any of PO's
wacky ideas. PO must, at some level, know that he is dishonestly
abusing someone kind enough to reply to what looked like an innocent technical enquiry.
However, the result is that the search engines will now dredge you PO's garbage in association with Sipsers good name. And every post
(including, I know, this one) strengthens this association in the search sites' algorithms.
PO will never see sense, so the /only/ way to stop this getting worse is
to stop replying. Please, I implore you all, don't reply to any more
posts on this topic. Imagine if it where you. Make to day the last day
you take any PO post seriously.
*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.
On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
(in this one case)...
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)