Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Paraphrase of Sipser's agreement

On 3/15/2025 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/15/2025 5:35 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/15/2025 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>
<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>
>

>
But he didn't agree to what you think he did:
>
>

 THIS IS EXACTLY AND PRECISELY WHAT I THINK HE DID AGREE TO
(It took me years to form this precise paraphrase)
 

Nope:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:
 >
 > > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:56:52 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
 > >> On 3/5/2023 8:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
 > >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:30:38 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
 > >> > >
 > >> > > I needed Sipser for people [bla]
 > >> > >
 > >> > Does Sipser support your view/claim that you have refuted the halting theorem?
 > >> >
 > >> > Does he write/teach that the halting theorem is invalid?
 > >> >
 > >> > Tell us, oh genius!
 > >> >
 > >> Professor Sipser only agreed that [...]
 > >
 > > So the answer is no. Noted.
 > >
 > >> Because he has >250 students he did not have time to examine anything
 > >> else. [...]
 > >
 > > Oh, a CS professor does not have the time to check a refutation of the
 > > halting theorem. *lol*
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.
On 8/23/2024 5:07 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.
On 8/23/2024 9:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > 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.