On 8/23/24 6:25 PM, olcott wrote:

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>

So, you don't understand the meaning of the word "Context"

It will be assumed, until you can PROVE otherwise, that Professor Sipser
was able to presume (even if you didn't mean for him to presume) that we
are talking in the context of actually working in the field of
Compuation Theory,

And thus, the only "Correct Simulation" that exist that tells you claim
it to tell is a COMPLETE simulation that doesn't abort.

And that inputs represesent FULL PROGRAMS, and include ALL the
instructions so used, and thus when we hypothoize about a different H
(the one that doens't abort) it is seeing the exact same input including everything it calls.

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;
}

Which means that this "DD" includes the code for the "HHH" that you are actually going to claim to be answering, and no other one.

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.

In which case, you need to allow that he might not have understood your
LIE that you mean for H to decide on the non-input, the different D
built on the H that doesn't abort as you are trying to force by your
simulation BY H, clause, which actually, just makes your whole condition
mute, as it is IMPOSSIBLE for the H to do that, and also then avail
itself of the option to abort, making you claim perhaps true, but only
because it is vacuous. Just like the statement that all mountains on
Earth with a height over 10 miles from sea level have a MacDonalds at
their summit.

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.

But only when the words mean what the mean in Computaion Theory.

And thus, the D that the Hypothetical non-aborting H, still is exactly
the same code as before, including everything that it called, so it
still calls the aborting version of H and thus, the non-aborting H will
see D call H, which will simulate for a while and then return 0 to D a
then D halt, and thus the actual aborting H never had the "permission"
to abort, so it did so at its own peril and thus got the wrong answer.

(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.

Except that they must be done per the rules of the system that he
naturally was presuming.

Unless you show that you made clear in your context that you intended to violate those rules,

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

Which

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.

Right, but only when the terms are defined correctly.

To be about the Halting Behavior of D, then the "correct simulation of
it by H" must be the corerect simulation of that exact input calling the
exact same H as you claim gives the right answer.

Since, your claimed hypothetical H that doesn't abort didn't see that
input, but a DIFFERENT D that calls instead of the actual H that does
abort, the hypothetical one that doesn't the results are NOT correct of Computation theory. They might be correct for you POOP theory, but no
one cases about that broken logic system.

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.

So, we should have stopped as soon as you made your first false statement?

Your problem is you are stuck with lies you have brainwashed yourself,
and thus when your lie protecting circuit breakers stop you from seeing
a truth, they just male you stupider and stupider.

Sorry, but that is the effect of "just stop reading" when you see
something that you think is incorrect. That is the method of the
election denier and the climate change denier, so you are just telling
them that they are right in their logic.

A proper critical reader, when he sees something he disagrees with is to
look at the statement he disagrees with and find the reaso it is
actually wrong and responds to that.

If your only answer is that it must be wrong because it disagrees with
what you think is true, then you must push the analysis to a deeper
level an say which view is actually based on the actual facts.

You are stuck at your level and can't go deeper, because there actaully
is nothing at the level below but your own mistaken ideas. You can not
actually quote any of the accepted ruleles of the system that support
your claim, which is why you feel the need to create a new system, but
that requires that you actually DO that, which you just don't have the
ability to do.

Your "Opponents" on the other hand, can quote the fundamental rules of
the system that support there views.

There are 3 different words to describe people who just disagree with
the nature of the world they are talking about:

1) Ignorant: Those that disagree with the nature of the world because
they just don't understand it. People in this category can leave it by learning, which will change their view.

2) Liars: Those that disagree with the nature of the world because they
think their point of view is "better" than reality. Normally they
actually know they ar lying thinking that their ideas are supperior and
they are describing how they think things SHOULD be, or are the ignorant
that just have chosen that they don't need to know the actual nature,
becuase their idea seems so right it doesn't matter what is the actual
truth. It could be said that people in this category have a problem
with God, or think they are God and have the power to be above the rules.

3) Insanity: There are some that just due to mental incapacity are
unable to understand the actual nature reality. They are sort of like
the previous class of Liars, except that the decision to ignore what is actually true isn't done as an act of decision, but is forced on them by
an utter inability to see reality. Sometimes it is partially a choice as
the barrier isn't a total inability but a restriction that they are just
not willing to push themselves through to overcome.

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.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)