Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Ben thinks processor Sipser is wrong
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:17:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dd80ce7e21f94fa29af75b7afc91894b4dfb60fa@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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 18:17:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2132707"; 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: <v66o3e$2rv8q$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3050
Lines: 46

On 7/4/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> <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.
> 
> 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.
> 


You mean you WASTED two years and set a trap for your self that you fell 
into.

The problem is that Ben is adopting your definitions that professor 
Sipser is not using.

In particular, for professor Sipser, D must be a program (a turing 
machine equivalent) but I think Ben is seeing that you H is being 
defined to take a TEMPLATE instead of a program.

Another way to look at thins is that H and P are entertwined entities 
and not two seperate programs in the system Ben was commenting about.

For Professor Sipser, H and D are REQUIRED to be independent entities, 
since that is what Computation Theory deals with.

So, the two problems are in completely different domains.