Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
joes <noreply@example.org> writes:<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
Am Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch atProfessor 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.
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-calledHe just saw it as others at the time saw it, as an obvious tautology.
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,His agreement did not exclude any 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 withoutThis is the Sipser_D that I sent him
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, theIt was seen as an obvious tautology that it always true.
"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.
When what they write being with a fundamentally falseI don't think PO even reads what people write.Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simply liedI don’t think you understood him.
about it.
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.)
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.