Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 01:10:49 +0000
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Newsgroups: comp.theory
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>
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 02:10:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 63
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-melicM8+mgTAzYEHmluCSTLpJ4m5Jts3oPhgYT/PFOd8VIl7ZgctbyvbDM9R9inBQg6KL1sz/d03nh3!jvLpneY5aq8+adwz7SBR/aGTOJN+QqSQ6CQnjGyDWwkkbILje2FtxkwKvb7/fnXeJ2IKTn6Rd9rh!FqsTsornOqzhLflaT0hLzK0oHXU=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5200

On 23/08/2024 22:07, 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.

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.)

So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case:  what Sipser understood he was 
agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as meaning.  Sipser would not agree that the conclusion 
applies in PO's HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts.

Mike.

> 
> 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.  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.)