| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<ae5c7e1bee87be98b7de015d8678f7f364e61c4a@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 --- Does Ben Bacarisse believe that Professor Sipser is wrong? Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 19:12:10 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <ae5c7e1bee87be98b7de015d8678f7f364e61c4a@i2pn2.org> References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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> <vafbb7$1t7ed$1@dont-email.me> <vafo8i$20jfl$1@dont-email.me> <vag0vn$22bh7$1@dont-email.me> <vag3df$22hmk$1@dont-email.me> <vag437$22sog$1@dont-email.me> <vahagp$2c6g7$1@dont-email.me> <vahp9o$2ee2e$1@dont-email.me> <vaikea$2j0f9$1@dont-email.me> <vaild6$2j7lo$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 23:12:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4024218"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <vaild6$2j7lo$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 11329 Lines: 202 On 8/26/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/26/2024 2:18 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 26.aug.2024 om 13:35 schreef olcott: >>> On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> 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". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *D would never stop running unless aborted* >>>>>>> *D would never stop running unless aborted* >>>>>>> *D would never stop running unless aborted* >>>>>>> *D would never stop running unless aborted* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you just being dishonest? >>>>>> >>>>>> Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the >>>>>> 'unless' part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops >>>>>> running, because it aborts. >>>>>> You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the >>>>>> abort itself. >>>>>> Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and >>>>>> therefore is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops >>>>>> running. Are you dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> because HHH is programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES* >>>>>>> *It has always been until a specific condition is met* >>>>>> >>>>>> It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after >>>>>> a few cycles) and then it halts. >>>>> >>>>> I have corrected you on this too may times. >>>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE >>>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE >>>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE >>>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE >>>>> HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE >>>> >>>> You don't listen. Preventing a halting program to reach its halt >>>> state by aborting the simulation does not prove that it has non- >>>> halting behaviour. >>>> >>>> And by aborting the simulated HHH is prevented to reach this halt >>>> state. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========