Ben seems to be contradicting himself

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.  That's
the only way is could be seen as a "minor remark" with being accused of
being disingenuous.
 

*This seems that you are contradicting yourself*
Yet you yourself agreed the the criteria of the first part has
been met for my D and my H. The 10/14/2022 11:36 AM context of
this is provided below.
<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>
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.
*This was the code referenced at the time*
On 10/14/2022 11:36 AM, olcott wrote:
 >
 > int Sipser_D(ptr2 M)
 > {
 >    if ( Sipser_H(M, M) )
 >      return 0;
 >    return 1;
 > }
 >
 > int main()
 > {
 >    Output((char*)"Input_Halts = ", Sipser_D(Sipser_D));
 > }
 >
*It was also provided to professor Sipser in an email*
Date 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM
Date 10/8/2022 6:29:41 PM

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.
 

H correctly predicts what the behavior of D would be in the case
where a hypothetical H never aborts its emulation of D. It does
this using something like mathematical induction.
Many people disagreed that the simulation of D by H was correct
even when this disagreement requires disagreeing with the verified
fact of the semantics of the x86 language.
Sipser_D correctly emulated by Sipser_H remains stuck in
recursive emulation until aborted. Professor Sipser never
had the time to understand what recursive emulation is.

(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.)
 

Within the context that I believed that you and several others
were lying about verified facts to play sadistic head games to
have a dishonest way to denigrate my life's work my reply to you
was 100% fully justified.
To the extent that this assumption was incorrect I apologize.
That you agreed the the first part of the Sipser criteria has
been met seems to indicate that you are truthful. I can't say
that about Richard.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer