XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/28/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/28/25 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 7/28/2025 4:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>> Op 26.jul.2025 om 21:07 schreef olcott:   
   >>>> On 7/26/2025 1:42 PM, joes wrote:   
   >>>>> Am Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:18:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:   
   >>>>>> On 7/26/2025 4:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>> Op 26.jul.2025 om 01:36 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's   
   >>>>>>>>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that   
   >>>>>>>>> P(P)   
   >>>>>>>>> *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and accepts   
   >>>>>>>>> that P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by   
   >>>>>>>>> what   
   >>>>>>>>> would happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they   
   >>>>>>>>> actually are.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Ben wasn't agreeing with you here.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> counter-factual.   
   >>>> Ben perfectly agreed with exactly half of what I said.   
   >>>> Ben agreed that the Sipser approved criteria was met.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    
   >>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its   
   >>>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D   
   >>>>      would never stop running unless aborted then   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
   >>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
   >>>>    
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> It does not matter whether he agreed or not, because it is a vacuous   
   >>> statement. H does not do a correct simulation. H does not correctly   
   >>> determines never stop running.   
   >>> When the conditions are not met, the conclusion is irrelevant and the   
   >>> whole statement is vacuous.   
   >>   
   >> *A more conventional way of saying that is*   
   >>   
   >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its   
   >> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D   
   >> *cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state*   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Which has to mean the correct simulation of it input, not ITS simulation   
   > of the input.   
   >   
      
   Its simulation of its input is   
   *The actual behavior that this INPUT actually specifies*   
      
   Saying that decider H is required report on the behavior   
   of machine M is a category error.   
      
   Turing machines cannot directly report on the behavior   
   of other Turing machines they can at best indirectly   
   report on the behavior of Turing machines through the   
   proxy of finite string machine descriptions such as ⟨M⟩.   
      
   Thus the behavior specified by the input finite string   
   overrules and supersedes the behavior of the direct   
   execution.   
      
   When machine description ⟨M⟩ correctly simulated   
   by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final   
   halt state this proves that the ⟨M⟩ input to H specifies   
   a non-terminating sequence of configurations.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 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: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)