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

On 5/14/2025 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 4:25 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 5:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/14/2025 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
And since the DD that HHH is simulating WILL HALT when fully simulated (an action that HHH doesn't do)

>
*NOT IN THE ACTUAL SPEC*
<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
>

>
That Sipser didn't agree what you think the above means:
>

>
If that was actually true then you could provide an
alternative meaning for the exact words stated above.

>
That Ben relayed a statement saying explicitly that is proof enough.
>

>
There is NO SUCH THING as proof enough.
That is not the way that any actual proof really works.

>
If Ben said that Sipser told him he doesn't agree with what you said, that is conclusive proof.
>
>

 You can't even pay attention to the exact words
that Ben actually said.
 

You mean these words where he explicitly says Sipser told him he doesn't agree with you?
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > 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 5/14/2025 3:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > Just to be clear, I did not "check" anything with Sipser.  I alerted him
 > to the fact that his agreement to a deceptively worded sentence was
 > being used in public.  Prof Sipser does not agree with PO's wacky ideas.

Ben also thought that I tricked Professor Sipser into
agreeing with those words. He thought that Professor
Sipser made a mistake. Its all in the record on comp.theory
back in 2022.
 

That's because you did.
Anyone else reading "its simulated D" would read it as "the direct execution of algorithm D which H is simulating"