Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 14/05/2025 09:17, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 21:43:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/13/2025 8:58 PM, dbush wrote:

 

Then maybe you should stop implying that Sipser agrees with the above
when it's been proven on multiple occasions that he has not.
*That* is dishonest.
>

I have the emails where he agreed that I could publish his agreement
with those exact words. Ben also checked this and verified it.

 Please publish those instead of paraphrasing.
 

What's this?  Some new conspiracy theory?  (Ben + PO conspiring to convince people here that Sipser has become involved?  WHY???)
PO misunderstands most things, but I simply don't see him inventing a made up email exchange with Sipser.  He gets confused about meanings of things, but he seems honest enough about things like this.  And I don't think Ben would say he'd briefly conversed with Sipser if he hadn't - what would be the point of it all?
OTOH PO contacting Sipser and trying to get him to accept some PO-wording of a statement about simulating halt deciders seems like EXACTLY the sort of thing PO might do.  PO agreeing to only quote specific words also seems totally plausible.  Sipser agreeing to the words PO quotes seems entirely feasible, although obviously Sipser would not be interpreting them in the same way as PO [and so is not in any shape or form supporting PO's argument].
There is a slight mystery as to why Sipser would respond to PO at all rather than just ignore him, but hey, maybe Sipser is just a nice guy!  And there's no way Sipser could have forseen PO's bizarre misinterpretation of the quote, because Sipser lives in the world of TMs and knows /absolutely nothing/ about PO quirky x86utm.exe environment and how it works exactly.
The real point here is surely that PO is attempting a blatant appeal to authority fallacy.  People should just make it clear that that doesn't work.
Mike.