Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." -- Nikita Khrushchev


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [Ben agrees]

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating haltolcott
`* Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating haltRichard Damon
 `* Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating haltolcott
  `* Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating haltRichard Damon
   `- Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating haltolcott

1
Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

<tikm1i$1mui$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9935&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9935

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!/GRMamn3ov7sGOWkEuxPQw.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: none...@beez-waxes.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt
decider
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 17:47:14 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <tikm1i$1mui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <ti6o0g$1fj1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87leplkn16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tiindo$3cg9h$1@dont-email.me>
<ssa3L.440909$SAT4.243077@fx13.iad> <tijpmt$gq2$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<nLk3L.783157$BKL8.600763@fx15.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="56274"; posting-host="/GRMamn3ov7sGOWkEuxPQw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.3.3
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Mon, 17 Oct 2022 22:47 UTC

On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim paragraph
>>>>>>> looks correct:
>>>>>>>      If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>      of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>>      correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced
>>>>>>> in this
>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this paper
>>>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>>>
>>>>>>       If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>>>>>>       of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>       correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>       specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to get
>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation.  Whatever H
>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant.
>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts.  0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>>>> computation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final
>>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given that
>>> H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
>>
>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>> 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.
>
> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY
> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
>
*Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
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.

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
> (in this one case)...

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

<Cbl3L.783160$BKL8.346007@fx15.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9936&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9936

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx15.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.3
Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt
decider
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <ti6o0g$1fj1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87leplkn16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tiindo$3cg9h$1@dont-email.me>
<ssa3L.440909$SAT4.243077@fx13.iad> <tijpmt$gq2$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<nLk3L.783157$BKL8.600763@fx15.iad> <tikm1i$1mui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <tikm1i$1mui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <Cbl3L.783160$BKL8.346007@fx15.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:04:03 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5724
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 17 Oct 2022 23:04 UTC

On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct:
>>>>>>>>      If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>>      of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>>>      correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced
>>>>>>>> in this
>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this
>>>>>>>> paper
>>>>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael Sipser*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>>>>>>>       of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>>       correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>>       specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless" to
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation.  Whatever H
>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant.
>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts.  0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final
>>>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given
>>>> that H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>> 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.
>>
>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY
>> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
>>
> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
> 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.
>
> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
> > (in this one case)...
>

Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and correctly
determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not halt.

A correct simulation demonstrates the behavior of direct execution, so
the fact that the D based on the H that you are talking about (the one
that "correctly" returns 0) will return a 1, showing that H was actually
incoorect, says that H never had a correct determination that any
correct simulation (its or otherwise) would never halt.

Note, Since H DOES abort its simulation, a condition based on it NEVER
aborting doesn't apply.

Yes, people agree that if H NEVER aborts, then the D built on it will be
non-halting.

This DOESN'T mean that a D built on an H that aborts because it
INCORRECT thinks that the input is non-halting because it incorrectly
uses that rule is non-halting, because once H does abort, the premise it
used no longer holds.

It is If H doesn't abort until it proves something, it is if H NEVER aborts.

H can not use behavior based on that to decide it is ok to abort.

THAT is you logical fallicy.

You are just proving your stupidity.

Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

<tikqn3$3i0ka$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9938&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9938

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt
decider
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:06:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <tikqn3$3i0ka$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <ti6o0g$1fj1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87leplkn16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tiindo$3cg9h$1@dont-email.me>
<ssa3L.440909$SAT4.243077@fx13.iad> <tijpmt$gq2$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<nLk3L.783157$BKL8.600763@fx15.iad> <tikm1i$1mui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<Cbl3L.783160$BKL8.346007@fx15.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:06:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="99fb4b4c8532d657838ebd3e797ebed3";
logging-data="3736202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180vwFHjGz06vJzqnJWs/Td"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.3.3
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D0zjUg8pwxZfAD4rnIleZQiFNJ0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <Cbl3L.783160$BKL8.346007@fx15.iad>
 by: olcott - Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:06 UTC

On 10/17/2022 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct:
>>>>>>>>>      If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>>>      of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>>>>      correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider referenced
>>>>>>>>> in this
>>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this
>>>>>>>>> paper
>>>>>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael
>>>>>>>>> Sipser*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect simulation
>>>>>>>>       of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>>>       correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>>>       specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless"
>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation.  Whatever H
>>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant.
>>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts.  0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not aborted?
>>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a final
>>>>> state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation, given
>>>>> that H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY
>>> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
>>>
>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>> 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.
>>
>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>  > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>  > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>  > (in this one case)...
>>
>
> Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and correctly
> determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not halt.
>
No his agreement is stronger than that, you are not paying close enough
attention or you don't care about the truth.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider

<UMm3L.108930$ocy7.71143@fx38.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9942&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9942

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx38.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.3
Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt
decider
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <ti6o0g$1fj1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87leplkn16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tiindo$3cg9h$1@dont-email.me>
<ssa3L.440909$SAT4.243077@fx13.iad> <tijpmt$gq2$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<nLk3L.783157$BKL8.600763@fx15.iad> <tikm1i$1mui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<Cbl3L.783160$BKL8.346007@fx15.iad> <tikqn3$3i0ka$2@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <tikqn3$3i0ka$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <UMm3L.108930$ocy7.71143@fx38.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:52:05 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5713
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:52 UTC

On 10/17/22 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/17/2022 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
>>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct:
>>>>>>>>>>      If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>>>>      of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>>>>>      correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>> referenced in this
>>>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review this
>>>>>>>>>> paper
>>>>>>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael
>>>>>>>>>> Sipser*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect
>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>       of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>>>>       correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>>>>       specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless"
>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation.  Whatever H
>>>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts.  0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not
>>>>>>> aborted?
>>>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a
>>>>>> final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation,
>>>>>> given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and CORRECTLY
>>>> predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
>>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>  > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>  > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>>  > (in this one case)...
>>>
>>
>> Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and
>> correctly determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not
>> halt.
>>
> No his agreement is stronger than that, you are not paying close enough
> attention or you don't care about the truth.
>

No, he agreed to the exact words you gave to him, and you need to
interpret according to what HE defines the words to be.

You are the one that doesn't care about the truth.

You are the one that doesn't seem to know what "Correct" means.

You are just proving you are a pathological liar who has buried their
reputation under the pile of falssehood they have been telling over the
past years.

You are just too stupid to realize it. I think you have gaslighted yourself.

YOU FAIL.

Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt decider [Ben agrees]

<tiku1t$449$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9945&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9945

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!/GRMamn3ov7sGOWkEuxPQw.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: none...@beez-waxes.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Michael Sipser of MIT validates the notion of a simulating halt
decider [Ben agrees]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:03:57 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <tiku1t$449$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ti6l95$1h8qt$1@dont-email.me> <ti6o0g$1fj1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87leplkn16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tiindo$3cg9h$1@dont-email.me>
<ssa3L.440909$SAT4.243077@fx13.iad> <tijpmt$gq2$5@gioia.aioe.org>
<nLk3L.783157$BKL8.600763@fx15.iad> <tikm1i$1mui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<Cbl3L.783160$BKL8.346007@fx15.iad> <tikqn3$3i0ka$2@dont-email.me>
<UMm3L.108930$ocy7.71143@fx38.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="4233"; posting-host="/GRMamn3ov7sGOWkEuxPQw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.3.3
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Tue, 18 Oct 2022 01:03 UTC

On 10/17/2022 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/17/22 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/17/2022 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/17/22 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/17/22 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/17/2022 5:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/17/22 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Op 12.okt..2022 om 17:08 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Michael Sipser of MIT said that this verbatim
>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph looks correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>      If H does correctly determine that its correct simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>      of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>>>>>>      correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>>>>>> This validates the idea of a simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>> referenced in this
>>>>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>>>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser has not had the time to carefully review
>>>>>>>>>>> this paper
>>>>>>>>>>> presented to him.
>>>>>>>>>>> *The exact words posted above have been approved by Michael
>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And what does he say about:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh please don't draw the good professor into this any further!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>       If H does incorrectly determine that its incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>       of D would never stop running unless aborted, would it be
>>>>>>>>>>       correct for H to abort this simulation and report that D
>>>>>>>>>>       specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need to remove the deceptive subjunctive "would ... unless"
>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>> something not open to PO's dishonest re-interpretation.
>>>>>>>>> Whatever H
>>>>>>>>> "would" do "unless" it does what it actually does is
>>>>>>>>> irrelevant. H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>> returns 0 and P(P) halts.  0 is the wrong answer for a halting
>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would the correctly simulated input ever stop running if not
>>>>>>>> aborted?
>>>>>>>> This is another legitimate way of asking: Does this input halt?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and the CORRECTLY SIMULATED input to H(D) will reach a
>>>>>>> final state if it were not a fact that H aborted its simulation,
>>>>>>> given that H(D) Does abort and return and answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so unless THIS H can correct simulate the input and
>>>>> CORRECTLY predict that it will not halt, it doesn't apply.
>>>>>
>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>  > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>>>>  > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion
>>>>  > (in this one case)...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, he agreed that if THIS H does a correct simulation and
>>> correctly determines that THIS simulation if done correctly would not
>>> halt.
>>>
>> No his agreement is stronger than that, you are not paying close
>> enough attention or you don't care about the truth.
>>
>
> No, he agreed to the exact words you gave to him, and you need to
> interpret according to what HE defines the words to be.

H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...

Meaning that Sipser_H can correctly determine that Sipser_D does specify
a non-halting sequence of configurations when Sipser_H applies the
Sipser approved criterion.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor