Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Ben Bacarisse is the only one that
 understood ---
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 11:38:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0811a527f3ef5000deb4be764d2ee7ffc3778ead@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me>
 <cd375f68f97a737988bab8c1332b7802509ff6ea@i2pn2.org>
 <va13po$376ed$7@dont-email.me>
 <d42e5d30ea5f1c067283cb04d8a7293e2117188e@i2pn2.org>
 <va24hl$3cvgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org>
 <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vab289$12nnm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 15:38:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3733217"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vab289$12nnm$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 12540
Lines: 256

On 8/23/24 6:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> joes <noreply@example.org> 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".
>>
> 
> <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>

So, you don't understand the meaning of the word "Context"

It will be assumed, until you can PROVE otherwise, that Professor Sipser 
was able to presume (even if you didn't mean for him to presume) that we 
are talking in the context of actually working in the field of 
Compuation Theory,

And thus, the only "Correct Simulation" that exist that tells you claim 
it to tell is a COMPLETE simulation that doesn't abort.

And that inputs represesent FULL PROGRAMS, and include ALL the 
instructions so used, and thus when we hypothoize about a different H 
(the one that doens't abort) it is seeing the exact same input including 
everything it calls.

> 
> It <is> a minor remark in that others at the time saw this as
> an obvious tautology. It <is not> 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;
> }

Which means that this "DD" includes the code for the "HHH" that you are 
actually going to claim to be answering, and no other one.

> 
> 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.

In which case, you need to allow that he might not have understood your 
LIE that you mean for H to decide on the non-input, the different D 
built on the H that doesn't abort as you are trying to force by your 
simulation BY H, clause, which actually, just makes your whole condition 
mute, as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the H to do that, and also then avail 
itself of the option to abort, making you claim perhaps true, but only 
because it is vacuous. Just like the statement that all mountains on 
Earth with a height over 10 miles from sea level have a MacDonalds at 
their summit.

> 
>> 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.

But only when the words mean what the mean in Computaion Theory.

And thus, the D that the Hypothetical non-aborting H, still is exactly 
the same code as before, including everything that it called, so it 
still calls the aborting version of H and thus, the non-aborting H will 
see D call H, which will simulate for a while and then return 0 to D a 
then D halt, and thus the actual aborting H never had the "permission" 
to abort, so it did so at its own peril and thus got the wrong answer.

> 
>> (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.

Except that they must be done per the rules of the system that he 
naturally was presuming.

Unless you show that you made clear in your context that you intended to 
violate those rules,

> 
>> 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

Which


> 
>> 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.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========