XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> writes:
...

If it's all the same to you, I'd much rather PO's stalking threads
(those where tries to get my attention) simply died a natural death.
He's become obsessed with me ever since I stopped talking to him, and I
don't want him encouraged.

If you must reply, at least change the subject so that it's accurate (as above!).

--
Ben.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 6/20/2023 6:48 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> writes:
...

If it's all the same to you, I'd much rather PO's stalking threads
(those where tries to get my attention) simply died a natural death.

*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

He's become obsessed with me ever since I stopped talking to him, and I
don't want him encouraged.

*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

If you must reply, at least change the subject so that it's accurate (as above!).

On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has
> declared that the wrong answer is the right one:
>
> Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct"
> answer even though P(P) halts?"
>
> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.

Because
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
All of my posts will be entitled as a Rebuttal to Ben

It is an easily verified fact that P correctly simulated by H cannot
possibly reach its own last instruction and terminate normally thus from
the Professor Sipser agreed criteria the input to H(P,P) does not halt.

MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
words are correct (he has not agreed to anything else):
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then
(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

To address what looks like a contradiction to reviewers not having a
very deep understanding of the halting problem:

(1) A return value of 1 from H(D,D) means the input to H(D,D) has halted

(2) A return value of 0 from H(D,D) has been redefined to mean
(a) D does not halt
(b) D has been defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value
that H returns.

*THIS CHANGE UTTERLY REFUTES BEN'S REBUTTAL*
*THIS CHANGE UTTERLY REFUTES BEN'S REBUTTAL*
*THIS CHANGE UTTERLY REFUTES BEN'S REBUTTAL*
*THIS CHANGE UTTERLY REFUTES BEN'S REBUTTAL*


--
Copyright 2023 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)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 6/22/23 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/20/2023 6:48 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> writes:
...

If it's all the same to you, I'd much rather PO's stalking threads
(those where tries to get my attention) simply died a natural death.

*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

No, he points out the truth of what you have been saying.

You actually don't WANT "Honest Dialog", because the only Honest Dialog
that CAN occc

He's become obsessed with me ever since I stopped talking to him, and I
don't want him encouraged.

*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*

If you must reply, at least change the subject so that it's accurate (as
above!).

On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

; Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has
; declared that the wrong answer is the right one:

; Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct"
; answer even though P(P) halts?"

; PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.

Because
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
*Ben Bacarisse targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue*
All of my posts will be entitled as a Rebuttal to Ben

So, you can't stand your own words being quoted back to you, with their
meaning explained?

Do you not agree that you said those things?

What is not "Honest" about what he said.

YOU seem to be the one that doesn't what "Honest Dialog" because you
freak out when someone disagrees with you.

It is an easily verified fact that P correctly simulated by H cannot
possibly reach its own last instruction and terminate normally thus from
the Professor Sipser agreed criteria the input to H(P,P) does not halt.

Which is irrelevent, as pointed out many times.

You are apparently just to stupid to understand.

MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
words are correct (he has not agreed to anything else):
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then
(b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

Yes, if H can show that an ACTUALLY CORRECT SIMULATION (which mean as
per a UTM, i.e. never aborted, of the ACTUAL INPUT) wouldn't halt, then
H can abort its simulation. SInce H does abort and return 0, that
condition isn't true. and you are just shown to be s stupid liar.

To address what looks like a contradiction to reviewers not having a
very deep understanding of the halting problem:

(1) A return value of 1 from H(D,D) means the input to H(D,D) has halted

(2) A return value of 0 from H(D,D) has been redefined to mean
    (a) D does not halt
    (b) D has been defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value
        that H returns.

So, you are admitting to being a liar about working on the Halting
Problem, or a total idiot that doesn't understand a thing about what you
are talking.

*THIS CHANGE UTTERLY REFUTES BEN'S REBUTTAL*
*THIS CHANGE UTTERLY REFUTES BEN'S REBUTTAL*
*THIS CHANGE UTTERLY REFUTES BEN'S REBUTTAL*
*THIS CHANGE UTTERLY REFUTES BEN'S REBUTTAL*

Nope, it says H is a correct POOP decider, not a Halt Decider, and you
are shown to be a Hypocritical Ignornat Pathalogical Lying Insane Idiot.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)