On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch
at the time so I do 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".
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!
Ben was talking about your Sipser quote.Academic exchange thrives on clarity. Cranks thrive on smoke andTry to point to the tiniest lack of clarity in this fully specified
mirrors.
concrete example.
On 8/27/2024 12:45 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch >>>>>> at the time so I do 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".
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!
Deciders never compute the mapping of the computation
that they themselves are contained within.
On 8/28/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:No, but the description of their own computation can be part of the input.
On 2024-08-27 13:04:26 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/27/2024 12:45 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch >>>>>>>> at the time so I do 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".
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!
Deciders never compute the mapping of the computation
that they themselves are contained within.
Why not? A decider always either accepts or rejects its input.
The computation that they themselves are contained within cannot
possibly be an input.
On 8/28/2024 7:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 28.aug.2024 om 13:46 schreef olcott:
On 8/28/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:No, but the description of their own computation can be part of the
On 2024-08-27 13:04:26 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/27/2024 12:45 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in >>>>>>>>>> touch
at the time so I do 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".
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!
Deciders never compute the mapping of the computation
that they themselves are contained within.
Why not? A decider always either accepts or rejects its input.
The computation that they themselves are contained within cannot
possibly be an input.
input.
As I have proved many hundreds of times
THIS FREAKING HAS FREAKING DIFFERENT FREAKING BEHAVIOR
when each are emulated according to the semantics of the x86 language.
Disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language is like
freaking disagreeing with freaking arithmetic you DF !!!
On 8/28/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-27 13:04:26 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/27/2024 12:45 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/26/2024 7:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:Is this an accurate phrasing, pete?
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
On 23/08/2024 22:07, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
We don't really know what context Sipser was given. I got in touch >>>>>>>> at the time so I do 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".
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!
Deciders never compute the mapping of the computation
that they themselves are contained within.
Why not? A decider always either accepts or rejects its input.
The computation that they themselves are contained within cannot
possibly be an input.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:35:41 |
| Calls: | 9,783 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,187,342 |