On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any interpretaion
of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to any inferences from those words.
Anyway, your HHH does not correctly determine that DD would not halt
unless aborted. DD halts if not aborted, as is correctly determined
by your HHH1.
Yes it does. Two LLM systems agree that the
two specifications are equivalent.
DD is only one specification. Equivalent specifications are possible
but not relevant.
On 10/19/2025 6:52 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
I think I spotted the game.
On 17/10/2025 02:45, olcott wrote:
...Olcott is referring to the age-old debate of whether allLP = not(true(LP)).
self-referential grammatically-propositional sentences denote
entailment
of a propositional formula and how to handle it.
false.
"This sentence is not true"...
only count expressions (or their negation)
derived by applying truth preserving operations
to a set of stipulated truths as truth bearers.
I think some in this group would prefer that.
That seems to be what Saul Kripke (1975) is saying. https://files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/1358/ files/2019/04/Outline-of-a-Theory-of-Truth.pdf
I haven't even skimmed his paper in at least ten years.
I am going by what AI has told me.
On 10/19/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any interpretaion
of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to any
inferences from those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
On 2025-10-19 16:18:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any
interpretaion
of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to any
inferences from those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
What Sipser did not agree was that even if the direct execution of D
halts if not aborted it is still possible that H correctly determines
that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
On 10/20/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-19 16:18:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any
interpretaion
of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to any
inferences from those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
What Sipser did not agree was that even if the direct execution of D
halts if not aborted it is still possible that H correctly determines
that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
In the case of HHH(DD) even the directly executed DD()
does not halt unless HHH(DD) unless HHH aborts the
simulation of its input.
The Halting Problem is a Category Error https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCTHP-3.pdf
On 10/20/2025 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/20/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-19 16:18:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any
interpretaion
of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to any >>>>> inferences from those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
What Sipser did not agree was that even if the direct execution of D
halts if not aborted it is still possible that H correctly determines
that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
In the case of HHH(DD) even the directly executed DD()
does not halt unless HHH(DD) unless HHH aborts the
simulation of its input.
The Halting Problem is a Category Error
https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCTHP-3.pdf
You ass. If a program is running forever, its doing something... You
cannot just abort it?
On 10/20/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-19 16:18:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any interpretaion >>>> of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to any
inferences from those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
What Sipser did not agree was that even if the direct execution of D
halts if not aborted it is still possible that H correctly determines
that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
In the case of HHH(DD) even the directly executed DD()
does not halt unless HHH(DD) unless HHH aborts the
simulation of its input.
On 2025-10-20 17:03:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/20/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-19 16:18:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any
interpretaion
of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to any >>>>> inferences from those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
What Sipser did not agree was that even if the direct execution of D
halts if not aborted it is still possible that H correctly determines
that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
In the case of HHH(DD) even the directly executed DD()
does not halt unless HHH(DD) unless HHH aborts the
simulation of its input.
There is no "unless" about it. DD halts.
On 10/21/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-20 17:03:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/20/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-19 16:18:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:What Sipser did not agree was that even if the direct execution of D
On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any interpretaion
of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to any >>>>>> inferences from those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>> 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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>
halts if not aborted it is still possible that H correctly determines
that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
In the case of HHH(DD) even the directly executed DD()
does not halt unless HHH(DD) unless HHH aborts the
simulation of its input.
There is no "unless" about it. DD halts.
That DD() halts depends on HHH(DD) rejecting its input.
On 2025-10-21 23:54:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/21/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-20 17:03:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/20/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-19 16:18:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any
interpretaion
of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to >>>>>>> any
inferences from those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>> 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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
10/13/2022>
What Sipser did not agree was that even if the direct execution of D >>>>> halts if not aborted it is still possible that H correctly determines >>>>> that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
In the case of HHH(DD) even the directly executed DD()
does not halt unless HHH(DD) unless HHH aborts the
simulation of its input.
There is no "unless" about it. DD halts.
That DD() halts depends on HHH(DD) rejecting its input.
You have posted traces that unambigously show that DD() halts. And anyone
can get from GirHub everything needed to check that DD() halts.
On 10/22/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-21 23:54:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/21/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-20 17:03:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/20/2025 4:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-19 16:18:38 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/19/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:What Sipser did not agree was that even if the direct execution of D >>>>>> halts if not aborted it is still possible that H correctly determines >>>>>> that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
On 2025-10-18 11:04:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/18/2025 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-10-09 17:27:39 +0000, olcott said:
*Ben already agreed that I met that particular reading*
But Sipser hasn't agreed.
It told me that I could quote his agreement.
That only covers the specific words. He didn't agree to any interpretaion
of the words that deviates from his understanding of them, nor to any >>>>>>>> inferences from those words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>>> 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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>>
In the case of HHH(DD) even the directly executed DD()
does not halt unless HHH(DD) unless HHH aborts the
simulation of its input.
There is no "unless" about it. DD halts.
That DD() halts depends on HHH(DD) rejecting its input.
You have posted traces that unambigously show that DD() halts. And anyone
can get from GirHub everything needed to check that DD() halts.
No Turing machine can compute any mapping from
non-inputs. The DD() caller of HHH(DD)
*IS NOT AN ARGUMENT TO DD*
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,073 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 220:10:49 |
| Calls: | 13,783 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,987 |
| D/L today: |
609 files (193M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,434,786 |