Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Ben Bacarisse is the only one that understood ---

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".
 

<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>
It <is> a minor remark in that others at the time saw this as
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 too
 > 250 students so he never had the time to understand
what I mean by recursive simulation.

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

He just saw it as others at the time saw it, as an obvious tautology.

(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.
 

His agreement did not exclude any 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

This is the Sipser_D that I sent him
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

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.
 

It was seen as an obvious tautology that it always true.
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.

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. 

When what they write being with a fundamentally false
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.)
 

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