Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.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: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Does Ben Bacarisse believe that
 Professor Sipser is wrong?
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 19:05:23 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <vafo8i$20jfl$1@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> <vafbb7$1t7ed$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 19:05:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="75882738edf0235511636ea93e796b96";
	logging-data="2117109"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YnBTHAqQzOr9nfWd2bA+D"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aFPPOcmNDOd39azxkAhZgLsY8O4=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vafbb7$1t7ed$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6190

Op 25.aug.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
> On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, 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.
>>
>> 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. 
> 
> <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>
> 
> If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
> some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
> There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.
> 
> I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
> because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.
> 
>> 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.)
>>
> 
> That people still disagree that a correct emulation
> of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
> of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
> is still seems flat out dishonest to me.
That someone still refuses to see that skipping the last few 
instructions of a halting program is a violation of the semantics of the 
x86 language seems dishonest to me, in particular when several people 
pointed him to this error.

> In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
> require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
> time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.

A repeating, but not an infinite repeating pattern, because HHH is 
programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles, which the simulated HHH 
would do, too, if not aborted too soon (unless cheating with the Root 
variable).