Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Correcting misconceptions of Ben Bacarisse
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 09:08:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <vai295$2fqcl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <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>
 <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:08:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dec62610ca8735fc1c973bb1b2398434";
	logging-data="2615701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18E7IyX5kjd0yjg3RjFcBBH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bmKrZKNNPsGjNkC8OJ6k2+uM2NM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
Bytes: 5819

On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> 
>> 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.)
> 
> Yes, and it fits with his thinking it a "trivial remark".  Mind you I
> can't help I feeling really annoyed that a respected academic is having
> his name repeated dragged into this nonsense by PO.
> 

It is *not* a trivial remark in terms of this email
that I sent Date 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM

<begin 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM email>
Professor Sipser:

I worked on this full time for four years.
I waited two years to talk to you about this.

int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
{
   if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
     return 0;
   return 1;
}

int main()
  {
   Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
  }

H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of  its correct
simulation of D.  H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely recursive
simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.

(a) Sipser_D calls Sipser_H
(b) that simulates Sipser_D with an x86 emulator
(c) that calls Sipser_H
(d) that simulates Sipser_D with an x86 emulator ...

Until Sipser_H aborts the simulation of its input and returns 0.
We assume that Sipser_H is a Turing computable function.
<end 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM email>

<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>

> That aside, it's such an odd way to present an argument: "I managed to
> trick X into saying 'yes' to something vague".  In any reasonable
> collegiate exchange you'd go back and check: "So even when D is
> constructed from H, H can return based on what /would/ happen if H did
> not stop simulating so that H(D,D) == false is correct even though D(D)
> halts?".  Just imagine what Sipser would say to that!
> 
> Academic exchange thrives on clarity.  Cranks thrive on smoke and
> mirrors.
> 


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