How credible is Mr Damon?

[Mr Flibble]

Hi!

Mr Damon seems to be missing the point about simulating halt
deciders: a VALID halt decider MUST return a halting decision in FINITE
TIME which means if the correct halting decision for an input is
non-halting then a simulating halt decider MUST perform a PARTIAL
simulation in order to meet that requirement; a FULL simulation would
BY DEFINITION never end.

A PARTIAL simulation is perfectly valid if it is EQUIVALENT to a FULL
simulation and whether or not that equivalence holds is a property of
the SIMULATION METHOD.

A PARTIAL simulation may still not return an answer within the lifetime
of the observable universe but we are not trying to solve the Halting
Problem per se: we are (well Olcott is) trying to REFUTE the Halting
Problem PROOFS.

/Flibble

[olcott]

That is a very apt and accurate analysis.
Richard and Ben always looked for any excuse they could find that they
could use to convince gullible fools that I am incorrect.

Richard seems to have no problem with flat out lying, Ben never took it
to quite this extreme. Ben had at least very extreme bias against me yet
to maintain a modicum of professionalism never actually directly
contradicted any easily verified facts.

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

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Do you think you are mostly "talking to yourselves" here?

[olcott]

All the prior followers are watching with intent interest yet dare not
disobey Ben's commandment.

[Richard Damon]

The fact that H needs to abort its simulation to answer in finite time
does not releive it of the requirement to give the correct answer that
matches what the simulation for in infinite time would show.

The fact that it can't give the right answer, just shows that the
problem is impossible to do, not that it is wrongly defined.

Many problems are shown to be impossible to do, so that by itself is not
an error.

[Mikko]

On 2022-11-14 19:53:04 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> Mr Damon seems to be missing the point about simulating halt
> deciders: a VALID halt decider MUST return a halting decision in FINITE
> TIME which means if the correct halting decision for an input is
> non-halting then a simulating halt decider MUST perform a PARTIAL
> simulation in order to meet that requirement; a FULL simulation would
> BY DEFINITION never end.

That you thinks he "seems to be missing" what he often says shows
that you are not credible.

Mikko

[Paul N]

I'm assuming this is a parody, but many others seem to have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Olcott in particular has demonstrated what it is a parody of.

[olcott]

On 10/17/2022 5:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/22 1:11 AM, olcott wrote:>> *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.

Ben was responding to the above paragraph that he snipped from his reply.

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 ...

[olcott]

On 11/15/2022 7:21 AM, Paul N wrote:

[Mr Flibble]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:53:14 -0500
Richard Damon <Ric...@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/14/22 2:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Mr Damon seems to be missing the point about simulating halt
> > deciders: a VALID halt decider MUST return a halting decision in
> > FINITE TIME which means if the correct halting decision for an
> > input is non-halting then a simulating halt decider MUST perform a
> > PARTIAL simulation in order to meet that requirement; a FULL
> > simulation would BY DEFINITION never end.
> >
> > A PARTIAL simulation is perfectly valid if it is EQUIVALENT to a
> > FULL simulation and whether or not that equivalence holds is a
> > property of the SIMULATION METHOD.
> >
> > A PARTIAL simulation may still not return an answer within the
> > lifetime of the observable universe but we are not trying to solve
> > the Halting Problem per se: we are (well Olcott is) trying to
> > REFUTE the Halting Problem PROOFS.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> The fact that H needs to abort its simulation to answer in finite
> time does not releive it of the requirement to give the correct
> answer that matches what the simulation for in infinite time would
> show.

I believe I said that in my post, i.e.:

"A PARTIAL simulation is perfectly valid if it is EQUIVALENT to a FULL
simulation and whether or not that equivalence holds is a property of
the SIMULATION METHOD."

>

> The fact that it can't give the right answer, just shows that the
> problem is impossible to do, not that it is wrongly defined.

If the simulation method is valid then it can give the right answer;
for a [Strachey 1965] "Impossible Program" I believe the right answer
is INVALID INPUT whilst Olcott believes it is NON-HALTING. If you
continue to refuse to allow me the reasonable conceit of extending the
definition of what constitutes a halt decider then I would have to
concur with Olcott's answer of NON-HALTING.

>
> Many problems are shown to be impossible to do, so that by itself is
> not an error.

We are not trying to SOLVE the Halting Problem, Olcott is trying to
refute the Halting Problem proofs and I believe he has done so: his SHD
highlights the category error present in those proofs.

/Flibble

[olcott]

On 11/15/2022 7:21 AM, Paul N wrote:

This is not a freaking parody you freaking nitwit it is a simple
explanation of how the concept of a simulating halt decider is valid:

H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines
that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted

The above is a tautology necessarily true.

[Python]

An even prime number greater than 3 is a prime number.

This is also a tautology.

[olcott]

a tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable. In other
words, it cannot be false. It cannot be untrue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

In my new post when (a)(b)(c) are true and (d) is a necessary
consequence of (a)(b)(c) then (d) is necessarily true.

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

“Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
meanings of their words alone...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

Your example is analogous to saying that all rattle snakes having very
long arms wear bright red hats, thus is not a tautology.

[Mr Flibble]

What about bright blue hats?

/Flibble

[Richard Damon]

How do you intend to prove that?

>
>>
>> The fact that it can't give the right answer, just shows that the
>> problem is impossible to do, not that it is wrongly defined.
>
> If the simulation method is valid then it can give the right answer;
> for a [Strachey 1965] "Impossible Program" I believe the right answer
> is INVALID INPUT whilst Olcott believes it is NON-HALTING. If you
> continue to refuse to allow me the reasonable conceit of extending the
> definition of what constitutes a halt decider then I would have to
> concur with Olcott's answer of NON-HALTING

And what is "Invalid" about the machine?

Yes, if you want to CHANGE the definition of what you are looking at,
and thus are NOT computing the "Halting Function" but the
Flibble-Halting-like function, you can. It just has no impact on the
original problem or proofs claiming show that the original problem is
uncomputable.

Your method is functionally no different than just defining that any
machine that runs for more than, say, 100 steps, is non-halting. That is
just proposing an "alternate" definition for Halting and showing that
you CAN compute this alternate definition.

>
>>
>> Many problems are shown to be impossible to do, so that by itself is
>> not an error.
>
> We are not trying to SOLVE the Halting Problem, Olcott is trying to
> refute the Halting Problem proofs and I believe he has done so: his SHD
> highlights the category error present in those proofs.
>
> /Flibble
>

And saying that an input is non-halting when it Halts does not refute
the proof,

Neither does showing that you can perhaps build a Flibble-Halting-Like
decider, or at least one that appears to handle this particluar case.

Since you do this by just redefining the "correct" answer, it doesn't
show anything about the original question.

[Richard Damon]

And since none of (a), (b), or (c) are actuallyy true, your "tautology"
doesn't actualy prove its conclusion.

>
> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

But we aren't working in epistemology, we are working in a FORMAL LOGIC,
where we need to prove things from the accepted axioms and definitions.

>
> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
> meanings of their words alone...
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>
> Your example is analogous to saying that all rattle snakes having very
> long arms wear bright red hats, thus is not a tautology.
>

But that IS a "true" statement by the classic definitions, since you can
not find a single counter example.