Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Ben Bacarisse fails understand that deciders COMPUTE THE MAPPING
 FROM INPUTS
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 06:57:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <van3be$3f6c0$3@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>
 <vak4gc$2teq9$3@dont-email.me> <vakj1m$302rl$4@dont-email.me>
 <vampa2$3dl83$2@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 13:57:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fac62f6084ae4030e082c32c7cff718b";
	logging-data="3643776"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ixH7xcC4TPx/SOM+lireT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KN+syQisNhbWU4Q4WqfCKiTz8Fg=
In-Reply-To: <vampa2$3dl83$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7735

On 8/28/2024 4:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 27.aug.2024 om 15:07 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/27/2024 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 01:03 schreef 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:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try to point to the tiniest lack of clarity in this fully
>>>> specified concrete example.
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> _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
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>
>>>> HHH computes the mapping from DDD to behavior that never reaches
>>>> its "return" statement on the basis of the x86 emulation of DDD
>>>> by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>
>>> Only, because the simulation stopped, so that it skipped the halting 
>>> part.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For all the  years people said that this simulation is incorrect
>>>> never realizing that they were disagreeing with the semantics
>>>> of the x86 language.
>>>
>>> No, all these years you did not realise that the simulation deviated 
>>> from the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last few 
>>> instructions of a halting program.
>>>
>>
>> *The abort code has been disabled*
>> *The abort code has been disabled*
>> *The abort code has been disabled*

> So, you changed the subject to another input for the simulator.

<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

I proved the *simulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted*
I proved the *simulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted*
I proved the *simulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted*

> That other input will most probably not halt. And the simulator fails to 
> produce the correct prediction.
> This is completely irrelevant for the different input where the abort 
> code is enabled.
> 

     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>

     HHH can abort its simulation of DDD and correctly report that DDD
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

> Can we now return to the original input that has the abort code enabled 
> and which halts and for which the correct prediction must be that it halts?


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