Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
joes <noreply@example.org> writes: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.)
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-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.
I don't think PO even reads what people write. He certainly works hardBen saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simply liedI don’t think you understood him.
about it.
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.