Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:24:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <vacmuj$1d5dd$2@dont-email.me>
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>
 <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vacbun$1bsac$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 15:24:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ef66ad74e187b44c1830ef5229db641";
	logging-data="1480109"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+S1BVifo2VGyUt+BzdhCWN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FdeCG1bm29riJbYOtAORAVQRF24=
In-Reply-To: <vacbun$1bsac$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5117

On 8/24/2024 5:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-24 01:10:49 +0000, Mike Terry said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> An important part of the agreement is "H correctly determines" which
> does not happen in HHH(DDD).
> 

<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>

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

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.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer