Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Mike Terry understands my code the best

On 8/23/2024 8:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 23/08/2024 22:07, 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.

 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.)
 So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case:  what Sipser understood he was agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as meaning.  Sipser would not agree that the conclusion applies in PO's HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts.
 

In other words is seems to me that you are finally seeing the
light on the first half thus have arrived at Ben's agreement
with the first half.
<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
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.
So at this point in time you understand my actual code better
than anyone else and Ben understands my design better than
anyone else.
This is the file that has all of the partial halt deciders
and their input. When the input has no input then HHH is
also a termination analyzer.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
*My best paper of many papers on this subject*
Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

Mike.
 

>
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.
>

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.)
 

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