On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>
> 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.

Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
computation textbooks.

P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted,"

Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."

P → Q

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>
>> 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.
>
> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
> computation textbooks.
>
> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> stop running unless aborted,"
>
> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>
> P → Q
>
>

Correct determination is impossible.

On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>> computation textbooks.
>>
>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>
>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>
>> P → Q
>>
>>
>
> Correct determination is impossible.

We can also correctly conclude that the directly executed D(D) and D
correctly simulated by H can neither ever stop running unless H aborts
its simulation of D thus proving that the directly executed D(D) does
not actually terminate normally.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>> computation textbooks.
>>
>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>
>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>
>> P → Q
>>
>>
>
> Correct determination is impossible.

In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/26/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
> On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
>>>> paper):
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>> computation textbooks.
>>>
>>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>>
>>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>>
>>> P → Q
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Correct determination is impossible.
>
> In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
> agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.
>

Vacuous truths are true.

On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/26/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
>>>>> paper):
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>>> computation textbooks.
>>>>
>>>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>>>
>>>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>>>
>>>> P → Q
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct determination is impossible.
>>
>> In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
>> agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.
>>
>
> Vacuous truths are true.

Not within the conventional understanding of true.

"It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"

Is not actually true at all when we bother to account
for false presuppositions. Thus the whole notion of
vacuous truth is inherently incorrect. It only superficially
seems to be correct when one hardly pays any attention.

*This also deals with false presuppositions*
Peter Olcott Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM
[The logical law of polar questions] [sci.lang]

When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/26/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else
>>>>>> in this paper):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>>>> computation textbooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>>>>
>>>>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>>>>
>>>>> P → Q
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct determination is impossible.
>>>
>>> In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
>>> agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.
>>>
>>
>> Vacuous truths are true.
>
> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>
> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>  in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>
> Is not actually true at all

Yes it is

On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/26/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else
>>>>>>> in this paper):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>>>>> computation textbooks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P → Q
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct determination is impossible.
>>>>
>>>> In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
>>>> agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>
>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>
>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>
>> Is not actually true at all
>
> Yes it is

False presuppositions are never actually true
at all, they only seem that was to people that
do not know what False presuppositions are.

*This also deals with false presuppositions*
Peter Olcott Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM
[The logical law of polar questions] [sci.lang]

When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/26/24 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>
>> 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.
>
> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
> computation textbooks.
>
> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> stop running unless aborted,"
>
> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>
> P → Q
>
>

And to show P you need for H to determine that THIS H would correctly
simulate the input and never halt, but for that to be true, THIS H can't
aborts its simulation, so P is only true if H never aborts, so even if Q
IS true, H actually can't do the abort, as its precondition in
establishing H was that it didn't.

Also, by the definition of "Correct Simulation", if THIS D(D) Halts,
then NO "Correct Simulation" of the input can be correctly shown to be
none halting (imagining H to be something else doesn't change the D it
is looking at, that is ALWAYS the final H that you will claim to give
the right answer).

Since if the actual H(D,D) returns 0, the actual D(D) will halt, this H
can not correctly determine that a correct simulation of the input input
(and thus ITS correcct simulation of the input if it did one) is
correctly determined never halt.

One key thing you omitted in the question you gave him is your
non-turing construction that D refers to what ever you are currently
imagining H to be, and NOT the actual H you are going to claim to be
correct.

Thus, your premise starts with a lie and ends with an error.

On 2024-01-26 17:54:49 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>
>> 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.
>
> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
> computation textbooks.

Those books say that there is no halt decider, simulating or
otherwise.

Mikko

On 2024-01-26 22:00:57 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/26/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>>>> computation textbooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>>>>
>>>>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>>>>
>>>>> P → Q
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct determination is impossible.
>>>
>>> In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
>>> agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.
>>>
>>
>> Vacuous truths are true.
>
> Not within the conventional understanding of true.

Depends on whose convetion you ask. In logic and among logically
thinking people the convetion is that truths are true, including
vacuous ones.

> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
> in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>
> Is not actually true at all when we bother to account
> for false presuppositions.

For logically thinking people that is true unless in the middle
of the living room there is a billoin ton epephant that is not
rainbow colored.

> Thus the whole notion of vacuous truth is inherently incorrect.

For a logically thinking people it is not incorrect. It just is
not very useful.

> It only superficially seems to be correct when one hardly pays
> any attention.

It often seems incorrect to those who don't pay attention.

> *This also deals with false presuppositions*
> Peter Olcott Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM
> [The logical law of polar questions] [sci.lang]
>
> When posed to a man whom has never been married,
> the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
> Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
> no is a correct answer.

When that sort of questions are needed for serious purposes,
valid answer options include 'not applicable' and 'don't konw'.

Mikko

On 2024-01-26 23:04:57 +0000, olcott said:

> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>>>>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>>>>>> computation textbooks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P → Q
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct determination is impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
>>>>> agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>>
>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>>
>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>>
>>> Is not actually true at all
>>
>> Yes it is
>
> False presuppositions are never actually true
> at all, they only seem that was to people that
> do not know what False presuppositions are.

False presuppositions never prevent anything else from being true.

Mikko

On 1/27/24 00:04, olcott wrote:
> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>> Is not actually true at all
>> Yes it is
>
> False presuppositions are never actually true

No they aren't.

"It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
is not a false presupposition.

On 1/27/2024 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-26 17:54:49 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this paper):
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>> computation textbooks.
>
> Those books say that there is no halt decider, simulating or
> otherwise.
>
> Mikko
>

Only because they have not caught up with my brand new
idea of a simulating halt decider. Professor Sipser
only reviewed the key element of my proof he never
got to the point where he understood recursive simulation.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/27/2024 1:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-26 22:00:57 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/26/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else
>>>>>>> in this paper):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>>>>> computation textbooks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P → Q
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct determination is impossible.
>>>>
>>>> In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
>>>> agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>
>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>
> Depends on whose convetion you ask. In logic and among logically
> thinking people the convetion is that truths are true, including
> vacuous ones.
>
>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>
>> Is not actually true at all when we bother to account
>> for false presuppositions.
>
> For logically thinking people that is true unless in the middle
> of the living room there is a billoin ton epephant that is not
> rainbow colored.
>
>> Thus the whole notion of vacuous truth is inherently incorrect.
>
> For a logically thinking people it is not incorrect. It just is
> not very useful.
>
>> It only superficially seems to be correct when one hardly pays
>> any attention.
>
> It often seems incorrect to those who don't pay attention.
>
>> *This also deals with false presuppositions*
>> Peter Olcott  Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM
>> [The logical law of polar questions] [sci.lang]
>>
>> When posed to a man whom has never been married,
>> the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
>> Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
>> no is a correct answer.
>
> When that sort of questions are needed for serious purposes,
> valid answer options include 'not applicable' and 'don't konw'.
>
> Mikko
>

*All undecidable decision problems have that same form*
Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ???
Tarski did not notice that it is an incorrect question.

He got confused because:
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.

Thus my [The logical law of polar questions] rejects
the same false presuppositions as false and does not
take them to be vacuously true.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/27/24 16:03, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-26 17:54:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
>>>> paper):
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>> computation textbooks.
>>
>> Those books say that there is no halt decider, simulating or
>> otherwise.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> Only because they have not caught up with my brand new
> idea of a simulating halt decider. Professor Sipser
> only reviewed the key element of my proof he never
> got to the point where he understood recursive simulation.
>

The only reason you say 1+1=2 is that you have not caught up with my
brand new idea of 1+1=3

On 1/27/24 16:11, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 1:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-26 22:00:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything
>>>>>>>> else in this paper):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>>>>>> computation textbooks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P → Q
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct determination is impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
>>>>> agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>>
>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>
>> Depends on whose convetion you ask. In logic and among logically
>> thinking people the convetion is that truths are true, including
>> vacuous ones.
>>
>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>>
>>> Is not actually true at all when we bother to account
>>> for false presuppositions.
>>
>> For logically thinking people that is true unless in the middle
>> of the living room there is a billoin ton epephant that is not
>> rainbow colored.
>>
>>> Thus the whole notion of vacuous truth is inherently incorrect.
>>
>> For a logically thinking people it is not incorrect. It just is
>> not very useful.
>>
>>> It only superficially seems to be correct when one hardly pays
>>> any attention.
>>
>> It often seems incorrect to those who don't pay attention.
>>
>>> *This also deals with false presuppositions*
>>> Peter Olcott  Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM
>>> [The logical law of polar questions] [sci.lang]
>>>
>>> When posed to a man whom has never been married,
>>> the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
>>> Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
>>> no is a correct answer.
>>
>> When that sort of questions are needed for serious purposes,
>> valid answer options include 'not applicable' and 'don't konw'.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> *All undecidable decision problems have that same form*
> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true" ???

Is it decidable whether the busy beaver function is greater than the
input number?

On 1/27/2024 1:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-01-26 23:04:57 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/24 22:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/26/2024 2:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/26/24 18:54, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything
>>>>>>>>> else in this paper):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>>>>>>> computation textbooks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P = "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted,"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Q = "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P → Q
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct determination is impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you believe that Professor Sipser
>>>>>> agreed to a vacuous truth. He did not do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>>>
>>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>>>
>>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>>>
>>>> Is not actually true at all
>>>
>>> Yes it is
>>
>> False presuppositions are never actually true
>> at all, they only seem that was to people that
>> do not know what False presuppositions are.
>
> False presuppositions never prevent anything else from being true.
>
> Mikko
>

*I just proved otherwise*
The false presupposition that the man was married makes the question:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
untrue and unfalse.

Peter Olcott Feb 20, 2015, 11:38:48 AM
The logical law of polar questions sci.lang

When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.

All polar questions (including incorrect polar questions)
have exactly one answer from the following:
1) No
2) Yes
3) Neither // Only applies to incorrect polar questions
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/27/24 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-01-26 17:54:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2022 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim
>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else in this
>>>> paper):
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Professor Sipser is the best selling author of theory of
>>> computation textbooks.
>>
>> Those books say that there is no halt decider, simulating or
>> otherwise.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> Only because they have not caught up with my brand new
> idea of a simulating halt decider. Professor Sipser
> only reviewed the key element of my proof he never
> got to the point where he understood recursive simulation.
>
>
>

Which isn't based on the correct definition of either "Correct
Simulation" or "Halting Decider".

In Computation Theory, the only thing that a "Correct Simulation" (the
way you are using it) is a recreation of the exact behavior defined by
the direct running of the input.

Since D(D) does reach a final state, any simulation that implies that it
didn't is just not correct;

And Halting, as you even quote, is based on the actual behavior of the
direct execution of the machine described by the input. Yours doesn't.
Now, if the simulation ACTUALLY WAS CORRECT, then it would be, but it is
impossible to base a Halt Decider solely on "Correct Simulation" as BY
DEFINITION a non-halting input takes unbounded steps to simulate, but a
Decider must answer in bounded time.

You are just working on POOP.

On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/27/24 00:04, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>>> Is not actually true at all
>>> Yes it is
>>
>> False presuppositions are never actually true
>
> No they aren't.
>
> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>  in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
> is not a false presupposition.
>

It falsely presumes that there are:
billion ton elephants in the middle of my living room.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/27/24 17:22, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/27/24 00:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>>>> Is not actually true at all
>>>> Yes it is
>>>
>>> False presuppositions are never actually true
>>
>> No they aren't.
>>
>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>> is not a false presupposition.
>
> It falsely presumes that there are:
> billion ton elephants in the middle of my living room.
>
No it doesn't.

On 1/27/24 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2024 6:28 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/27/24 00:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2024 4:51 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/24 23:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/2024 3:42 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Vacuous truths are true.
>>>>> Not within the conventional understanding of true.
>>>>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>>>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>>>>> Is not actually true at all
>>>> Yes it is
>>>
>>> False presuppositions are never actually true
>>
>> No they aren't.
>>
>> "It is true that all of the billion ton elephants
>>   in the middle of my living room are rainbow colored"
>> is not a false presupposition.
>>
>
> It falsely presumes that there are:
> billion ton elephants in the middle of my living room.
>

IF A then B does NOT presume that A is true.

All A are B does not presume that there exists any A

These are fundamental rules of logic.

Yes, there are some alternate version of categorical logic where the
Universal Qualifier include an assumption of existance, but the standard
logic does not.