Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Ben thinks processor Sipser is wrong
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 09:55:48 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d6b98ba26715d7296e3e632b758066a8e4650a42@i2pn2.org>
References: <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v66o3e$2rv8q$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 09:55:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2224012"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2546
Lines: 32

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:02:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> <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>
> 
> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
>> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
>> *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
> ...
>> But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not
>> halted.  That much is a truism.
> 
> Ben clearly agrees that the above criteria have been met,
> yet feels that professor Sipser was tricked into agreeing that this
> means that:
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
That seems to me to be the same sentence.

> I spent two years deriving those words that Professor Sipser agreed
> with. It seems to me that every software engineer would agree that the
> second part is logically entailed by the first part.
I can‘t see anywhere that Ben said that the simulation is correct.
I read only the counterfactual „if it weren’t aborted” (which it is).

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.