Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:So, you don't understand the meaning of the word "Context"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:>>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".
>
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>
It <is> a minor remark in that others at the time saw this asWhich means that this "DD" includes the code for the "HHH" that you are actually going to claim to be answering, and no other one.
an obvious tautology. It <is not> a minor remark when one applies
HHH to this input:
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
Professor Sipser was overwhelmed at the time with tooIn which case, you need to allow that he might not have understood your LIE that you mean for H to decide on the non-input, the different D built on the H that doesn't abort as you are trying to force by your simulation BY H, clause, which actually, just makes your whole condition mute, as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the H to do that, and also then avail itself of the option to abort, making you claim perhaps true, but only because it is vacuous. Just like the statement that all mountains on Earth with a height over 10 miles from sea level have a MacDonalds at their summit.
> 250 students so he never had the time to understand
what I mean by recursive simulation.
But only when the words mean what the mean in Computaion Theory.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
Except that they must be done per the rules of the system that he naturally was presuming.(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.
>
WhichI 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
Date 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM
in our many email exchanges at the time.
Professor Sipser:
I worked on this full time for four years.
I waited two years to talk to you about this.
int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
{
if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
return 0;
return 1;
}
int main()
{
Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
}
H bases its analysis of its input D on the behavior of its correct
simulation of D. H finds that D remains stuck in infinitely recursive
simulation (shown below) until H aborts its simulation of D.
(a) Sipser_D calls Sipser_H
(b) that simulates Sipser_D with an x86 emulator
(c) that calls Sipser_H
(d) that simulates Sipser_D with an x86 emulator ...
Until Sipser_H aborts the simulation of its input and returns 0.
We assume that Sipser_H is a Turing computable function.
The whole analysis is elaborated in this archival
copy of my paper that I sent him a link to
https://philarchive.org/archive/OLCRTSv6
Date 10/13/2022 11:16:22 AM
Right, but only when the terms are defined correctly.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.
>
This is of little consequence until it is understood that
it also works in the HP input. He did not have the time
to understand what recursive simulation is.
So, we should have stopped as soon as you made your first false statement?When what they write being with a fundamentally false>Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simply liedI don’t think you understood him.
about it.
I don't think PO even reads what people write.
assumption I stop there. Most replies are like that.
yours and Mike's are not.
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.