Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Ben Bacarisse fails understand that deciders compute the mapping
 from inputs
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 05:45:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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>
	<efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 05:45:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4056579"; 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: 4165
Lines: 44

Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>> On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>>>> We don't really know what context Sipser was given.  I got in touch
>>>> at the time so I do 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.
>>>
>>> Exactly my reading.  It makes Sipser's agreement natural, because it
>>> is both correct [with sensible interpretation of terms], and moreover
>>> describes an obvious strategy that a partial decider might use that
>>> can decide halting for some specific cases.  No need for Sipser to be
>>> deceptive or misleading here, when the truth suffices.  (In particular
>>> no need to employ "tricksy" vacuous truth get out clauses just to get
>>> PO off his back as some have suggested.)
>> 
>> Yes, and it fits with his thinking it a "trivial remark".

>> That aside, it's such an odd way to present an argument: "I managed to
>> trick X into saying 'yes' to something vague".  In any reasonable
>> collegiate exchange you'd go back and check: "So even when D is
>> constructed from H, H can return based on what /would/ happen if H did
>> not stop simulating so that H(D,D) == false is correct even though D(D)
>> halts?".  Just imagine what Sipser would say to that!
Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?

>> Academic exchange thrives on clarity.  Cranks thrive on smoke and
>> mirrors.
> Try to point to the tiniest lack of clarity in this fully specified
> concrete example.
Ben was talking about your Sipser quote.
But for one, HHH isn’t defined.

[copypasta snipped]
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.