Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Does Ben Bacarisse believe that Professor Sipser is wrong? Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 19:05:23 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 87 Message-ID: References:

<431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org> <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org> <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org> <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>

<5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>

<878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 19:05:23 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="75882738edf0235511636ea93e796b96"; logging-data="2117109"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YnBTHAqQzOr9nfWd2bA+D" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:aFPPOcmNDOd39azxkAhZgLsY8O4= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6190 Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott: > On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> joes writes: >> >>> Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> >>>> Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulation >>>> of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D. >>> >>> If the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is, >>> by construction, the same and *does* abort. >> >> We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch at >> the time so do I know he had enough context to know that PO's ideas were >> "wacky" and that had agreed to what he considered a "minor remark". >> >> Since PO considers his words finely crafted and key to his so-called >> work I think it's clear that Sipser did not take the "minor remark" he >> agreed to to mean what PO takes it to mean! My own take if that he >> (Sipser) read it as a general remark about how to determine some cases, >> i.e. that D names an input that H can partially simulate to determine >> it's halting or otherwise. We all know or could construct some such >> cases. >> >> I suspect he was tricked because PO used H and D as the names without >> making it clear that D was constructed from H in the usual way (Sipser >> uses H and D in at least one of his proofs). Of course, he is clued in >> enough know that, if D is indeed constructed from H like that, the >> "minor remark" becomes true by being a hypothetical: if the moon is made >> of cheese, the Martians can look forward to a fine fondue. But, >> personally, I think the professor is more straight talking than that, >> and he simply took as a method that can work for some inputs. > > > 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. > > > If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for > some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect. > There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement. > > I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake > because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me. > >> That's >> the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of >> being disingenuous. >> >>>> Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simply >>>> lied >>>> about it. >>> I don’t think you understood him. >> >> I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly works hard >> to avoid addressing any points made to him. I think it's true to say >> that pretty much every paraphrase he attempts "X thinks ..." (usually >> phrased as "so you are saying that black is white?") is garbage. >> Understanding what other people say is low in his priorities since they >> must be wrong anyway. >> >> (I refuse to have anything more to do with PO directly after he was >> unconscionably rude, but I do keep an eye out for my name in case he >> continues to smear it.) >> > > That people still disagree that a correct emulation > of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics > of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation > is still seems flat out dishonest to me. That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics of the x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when several people pointed him to this error. > In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does > require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one > time before HHH sees the repeating pattern. A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern, because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles, which the simulated HHH would do, too, if not aborted too soon (unless cheating with the Root variable).