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 15:27:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <vag437$22sog$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> <vag0vn$22bh7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vag3df$22hmk$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 22:27:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a670d0b40a69b9795b0e80c20921477";
	logging-data="2192144"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SpmZcOgcanRC6O7+i6Zdz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:B9h12+BUJSZQ5ONKwjfgXhEjEWk=
In-Reply-To: <vag3df$22hmk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7963

On 8/25/2024 3:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 25.aug.2024 om 21:34 schreef olcott:
>> 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?
> 
> Forget your dream of a non-aborting HHH. It does abort, so the 'unless' 
> part makes it unnecessarily complicated. It stops running, because it 
> aborts.
> You can't have a HHH that is aborted, when it does not perform the abort 
> itself.
> Why don't you see that? Are you dishonest? It does abort and therefore 
> is does not repeat infinitely. Then it halts. It stops running. Are you 
> dishonest, or dreaming, or cheating?
> 
> 
>>
>>>  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*
> 
> It is coded to abort when it sees this 'specific' condition (after a few 
> cycles) and then it halts. 

I have corrected you on this too may times.
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE
HALTS IS ONLY REACHING A FINAL HALT STATE

At this point you are written off as a liar.
-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer