Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!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: Ben Bacarisse fails understand that deciders compute the mapping
 from inputs
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 06:46:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@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> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
 <vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:46:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fac62f6084ae4030e082c32c7cff718b";
	logging-data="3643776"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/I3r4npAe7EXGw98zE43ky"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9bXniGOGF9Hu/ez5JUX5l2O/vnE=
In-Reply-To: <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4966

On 8/28/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-27 13:04:26 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 8/27/2024 12:45 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> 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:
>>>
>>>>>>> We don't really know what context Sipser was given.  I got in touch
>>>>>>> at the time so I do 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".
>>>
>>>>> 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!
>>> Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?
>>
>> Deciders never compute the mapping of the computation
>> that they themselves are contained within.
> 
> Why not? A decider always either accepts or rejects its input. 

The computation that they themselves are contained within cannot
possibly be an input.

> If the
> input specifies a computation then it maps the computation to either
> accept or reject. Whether the computation contains the decider does
> not affect that. If the "decider" neither accpets nor rejects it is
> not a decider.
> 


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