Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Ben Bacarisse is the only one that understood --- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 17:25:11 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 137 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: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 00:25:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ef66ad74e187b44c1830ef5229db641"; logging-data="1138422"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194kAyC6BjVdCz86IVW7N3t" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:knFphzxoGtYT1EyhefEj+/JYsuc= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Bytes: 6889 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". > 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. It a minor remark in that others at the time saw this as an obvious tautology. It a minor remark when one applies HHH to this input: int DD() { int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); if (Halt_Status) HERE: goto HERE; return Halt_Status; } Professor Sipser was overwhelmed at the time with too > 250 students so he never had the time to understand what I mean by recursive simulation. > 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 He just saw it as others at the time saw it, as an obvious tautology. > (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. > His agreement did not exclude any 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 This is the Sipser_D that I sent him Date 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM in our many email exchanges at the time. Professor Sipser: I worked on this full time for four years. I waited two years to talk to you about this. int Sipser_D(ptr2 M) { if ( Sipser_H(M, M) ) return 0; return 1; } int main() { Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D)); } H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its correct simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely recursive simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D. (a) Sipser_D calls Sipser_H (b) that simulates Sipser_D with an x86 emulator (c) that calls Sipser_H (d) that simulates Sipser_D with an x86 emulator ... Until Sipser_H aborts the simulation of its input and returns 0. We assume that Sipser_H is a Turing computable function. The whole analysis is elaborated in this archival copy of my paper that I sent him a link to https://philarchive.org/archive/OLCRTSv6 Date 10/13/2022 11:16:22 AM > 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. That's > the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of > being disingenuous. > It was seen as an obvious tautology that it always true. This is of little consequence until it is understood that it also works in the HP input. He did not have the time to understand what recursive simulation is. >>> 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. When what they write being with a fundamentally false assumption I stop there. Most replies are like that. yours and Mike's are not. > 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.) > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer