Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Does Ben Bacarisse believe that Professor Sipser is wrong? Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 15:27:19 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 133 Message-ID: References: <431deaa157cdae1cae73a1b24268a61cf8ec2c1c@i2pn2.org> <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org> <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org> <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org> <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@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: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 22:27:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a670d0b40a69b9795b0e80c20921477"; logging-data="2192144"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SpmZcOgcanRC6O7+i6Zdz" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:B9h12+BUJSZQ5ONKwjfgXhEjEWk= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7963 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 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. >>>> >>>> >>>>      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. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 At this point you are written off as a liar. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer