Correcting misconceptions of Ben Bacarisse

On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
 

On 23/08/2024 22:07, 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.

>
Exactly my reading.  It makes Sipser's agreement natural, because it is
both correct [with sensible interpretation of terms], and moreover
describes an obvious strategy that a partial decider might use that can
decide halting for some specific cases.  No need for Sipser to be deceptive
or misleading here, when the truth suffices.  (In particular no need to
employ "tricksy" vacuous truth get out clauses just to get PO off his back
as some have suggested.)

 Yes, and it fits with his thinking it a "trivial remark".  Mind you I
can't help I feeling really annoyed that a respected academic is having
his name repeated dragged into this nonsense by PO.
 

It is *not* a trivial remark in terms of this email
that I sent Date 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM
<begin 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM email>
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.
<end 10/11/2022 7:22:44 AM email>
<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>

That aside, it's such an odd way to present an argument: "I managed to
trick X into saying 'yes' to something vague".  In any reasonable
collegiate exchange you'd go back and check: "So even when D is
constructed from H, H can return based on what /would/ happen if H did
not stop simulating so that H(D,D) == false is correct even though D(D)
halts?".  Just imagine what Sipser would say to that!
 Academic exchange thrives on clarity.  Cranks thrive on smoke and
mirrors.
 

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