Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 --- Does Ben Bacarisse believe that
 Professor Sipser is wrong?
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 14:34:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <vag0vn$22bh7$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>
 <vafo8i$20jfl$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 21:34:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a670d0b40a69b9795b0e80c20921477";
	logging-data="2174503"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YtFS9TfN3UWKLwG0f0HWk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xUFTSUvhL0zj33fHLKmDkhX7UWw=
In-Reply-To: <vafo8i$20jfl$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6937

On 8/25/2024 12:05 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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,

*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*

Are you just being dishonest?

>  because HHH is 
> programmed to abort and halt after a few cycles, 

*It never has been AFTER A FEW CYCLES*
*It has always been until a specific condition is met*

*until H correctly determines that its simulated*
*D would never stop running unless aborted*

Are you just being dishonest?

> which the simulated HHH 
> would do, too, if not aborted too soon (unless cheating with the Root 
> variable).


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