Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Does Ben Bacarisse believe that Professor Sipser is wrong?

On 8/25/24 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/23/2024 4:07 PM, 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.
>
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.

 <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>

And thus, those words need to be interpreted per the meaning that Professor Sipser uses, which are the generally accepted meanings in the field

 If professor Sipser agreed to this and it only works for
some inputs then his agreement would have been incorrect.
There was an 18 message exchange prior to this agreement.

No, it works for all VALID inputs. Those being input that are in the domain of a halt decider (since you can't correctly simulate something that isn't) and that is representations of FULL PROGRAMS that include ALL the code used by the input program, which for D includes the code for the H that you claim gives the final answer.

 I do not believe that Professor Sipser made a mistake
because it still seems to be a simple tautology to me.

But only by the proper meaning of the words, which means that H needs to correct determine what a correct simulation would do, and that is a simulation that doesn't abort. It also means that simulation is of the exact same FULL program as was given to the H that you are claiming to be correct.
Since a FULL correct simulation of the input D will see D call H and then H does its thing and aborts its simulation and return 0 (since that D calls the H you claim is right, and that is what that H does), and then that D will halt, thus H could NOT have "correctly predicted" a behavior of that full correct simulation that just doesn't happen.

 

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.)
>

 That people still disagree that a correct emulation
of N instructions of DDD according to the semantics
of the x86 language defines what a correct simulation
is still seems flat out dishonest to me.

Becausee that isn't the DEFINITION of a correct simulation that determines the behavior of the input.
Do you have a reference for your claim, or is this just another of your LIES that you claim to be true based on your IGNORANT analysis of the field without knowing the basic definitions that you know you can't actually "prove" so it is just made as an "obvious" claim.
The fact that you do this is just PROOF that you are just LYING and not talking from a position of knowledge, as knowledge can prove itself from the accepted basic facts of the system in question (which you seem to be ignorant of).

 In the case of DDD correctly emulated by HHH this does
require HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD exactly one
time before HHH sees the repeating pattern.

But it is a CONDITIONALLY repeating pattern, which is not proof of an INFINITELY repeating pattern.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>

And the below is *NOT* a correct emulation of the call HHH instruction.
PERIOD.
So, your "proof" is based on LIES.

New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
[00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped