XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/7/2025 9:59 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 06/11/2025 01:29, olcott wrote:
>
>> ... why did it take three f-cking years for even
>> one person to acknowledge it?
>
> Did it take 3 three years to establish both of:
>
> (a) common meaning/understanding
> (b) a match between perceived purpose and actual purpose
>
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
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 10/14/2022 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.
*The above words have been improved to these words*
If simulating [*termination analyzer*] H correctly simulates
its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
[*cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state*]
then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that
[*its simulated*] D specifies a non-halting sequence of
configurations.
>
>> I would say because all my reviewers have been
>> dishonest
>
> I recall that you gave a nonempty list of those you decided had been
> honest. IIRC then you have work to do on your use of "all".
>
>
>> giving disagreement much more priority
>> than truth.
>
> Truth is a speck of belief in a universe of illusions. Few satisfying
> interchanges seeking truth will have more than a few truths among many
> disagreements as the disagreements progressively prompt restrictions
> upon the space of meaning until truth remains.
>
> Arthur Conan Doyle said it better than me.
>
>
>> I had to box you into a corner where not acknowledging
>> it would make you look utterly ridiculous.
>
> I recall seeing a shrinking box as terminology was clarified
> satisfactorily. I should note, language often defines a set of (sets of)
> solutions rather than one and a prompt may be taken to ask for any
> solution, the unique solution, a valuation of the universal generality
> of a propositional statement, a valuation of any restricted generality
> of such, or more besides. You should expect to be required to box your
> reviewers into a corner before they give a valuation or solution even
> when many will foolishly offer them.
>
> We're doing (almost) logic here, if Sipser and Linz do not box their
> readers into a corner then I should avoid them.
>
>
> --
> Tristan Wibberley
>
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
>
--
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)
|
