Re: Ben thinks processor Sipser is wrong

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 13:02:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:

<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.

 
Ben clearly agrees that the above criteria have been met,
yet feels that professor Sipser was tricked into agreeing that this
means that:
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

That seems to me to be the same sentence.

I spent two years deriving those words that Professor Sipser agreed
with. It seems to me that every software engineer would agree that the
second part is logically entailed by the first part.

I can‘t see anywhere that Ben said that the simulation is correct.
I read only the counterfactual „if it weren’t aborted” (which it is).

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.