Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:14:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 175
Message-ID: <vaigmq$2ibdj$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> <vafbb7$1t7ed$1@dont-email.me>
 <vafo8i$20jfl$1@dont-email.me> <vag0vn$22bh7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vag3df$22hmk$1@dont-email.me> <vag437$22sog$1@dont-email.me>
 <vahagp$2c6g7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 20:14:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dec62610ca8735fc1c973bb1b2398434";
	logging-data="2698675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/MAn+hLhtL5mVdsxrD0ikA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G8DwwfQqNu9YGqhlK+nVcV1CUEI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vahagp$2c6g7$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9463

On 8/26/2024 2:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 25.aug.2024 om 22:27 schreef olcott:
>> 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
> 
> You don't listen. Preventing a halting program to reach its halt state 
> by aborting the simulation does not prove that it has non-halting 
> behaviour.
> 
> And by aborting the simulated HHH is prevented to reach this halt state. 
> That does not change the fact that the simulated HHH would have detected 
> the 'specific' condition and would have halted.

OK I got it now.

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========