Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser

On 24/08/2024 11:16, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-24 01:10:49 +0000, Mike Terry said:
 

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.)
>
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.

 An important part of the agreement is "H correctly determines" which
does not happen in HHH(DDD).

Indeed.
PO has a rule he applies: his "infinite recursive simulation" rule.  He believes that his rule is sound, i.e. when it matches that means the simulated computation will never halt.  I told him 3 years ago that his rule was simply unsound and challenged him to prove his rule.  Of course, I knew that was totally beyond his capabilities, and sure enough he has only ever made a couple of duffer attempts at a proof.  [One such attempt started by stating it was an axiom that such a computation would never halt!  Therefore it never halts because the axiom says so.  QED.  :) ]
In the absence of such a proof there's really nothing more to talk about - his rule is wrong, er, that's it...
Mike.