Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.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: Ben seems to be contradicting himself
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 08:31:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <vapt85$3vum7$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 15:31:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e678f999b18028d25fa9559cad82e90c";
	logging-data="4192967"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/COUBvgyC4yLjQyvqn7/Vg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XaUO6S3qk3sZdVigySLleQgxSfI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Bytes: 6874

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.  That's
> the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of
> being disingenuous.
> 

*This seems that you are contradicting yourself*
Yet you yourself agreed the the criteria of the first part has
been met for my D and my H. The 10/14/2022 11:36 AM context of
this is provided below.

<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>

On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
....
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
 > were not halted.  That much is a truism.

*This was the code referenced at the time*
On 10/14/2022 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
 >
 > int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
 > {
 >    if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
 >      return 0;
 >    return 1;
 > }
 >
 > int main()
 > {
 >    Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
 > }
 >

*It was also provided to professor Sipser in an email*
Date 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM
Date 10/8/2022 6:29:41 PM

>>> 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.
> 

H correctly predicts what the behavior of D would be in the case
where a hypothetical H never aborts its emulation of D. It does
this using something like mathematical induction.

Many people disagreed that the simulation of D by H was correct
even when this disagreement requires disagreeing with the verified
fact of the semantics of the x86 language.

Sipser_D correctly emulated by Sipser_H remains stuck in
recursive emulation until aborted. Professor Sipser never
had the time to understand what recursive emulation is.

> (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.)
> 

Within the context that I believed that you and several others
were lying about verified facts to play sadistic head games to
have a dishonest way to denigrate my life's work my reply to you
was 100% fully justified.

To the extent that this assumption was incorrect I apologize.
That you agreed the the first part of the Sipser criteria has
been met seems to indicate that you are truthful. I can't say
that about Richard.

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