XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/20/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/20/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote:   
   >> On 10/20/2025 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 10/20/2025 10:05 PM, dbush wrote:>>>   
   >>>> You mean the words where he didn't agree with your interpretation of   
   >>>> them?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> According to a Claude AI analysis there   
   >>> are only two interpretations and one of   
   >>> them is wrong and the other one is my   
   >>> interpretation.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Whether you think one interpretation is wrong is irrelevant.  What is   
   >> relevant is that that's how everyone else including Sipser interpreted   
   >> those words, so you lie by implying that he agrees with your   
   >> interpretation.   
   >>   
   >   
   >    
   >   
      
   Repeating the point that was just refuted is less than no rebuttal, and   
   therefore constitutes your admission that Sipser does NOT agree with   
   you, and that you have been lying by implying that he does.   
      
      
      
   On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
    > Fritz Feldhase  writes:   
    >   
    > > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:56:52 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:   
    > >> On 3/5/2023 8:33 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:   
    > >> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:30:38 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:   
    > >> > >   
    > >> > > I needed Sipser for people [bla]   
    > >> > >   
    > >> > Does Sipser support your view/claim that you have refuted the   
   halting theorem?   
    > >> >   
    > >> > Does he write/teach that the halting theorem is invalid?   
    > >> >   
    > >> > Tell us, oh genius!   
    > >> >   
    > >> Professor Sipser only agreed that [...]   
    > >   
    > > So the answer is no. Noted.   
    > >   
    > >> Because he has >250 students he did not have time to examine anything   
    > >> else. [...]   
    > >   
    > > Oh, a CS professor does not have the time to check a refutation of the   
    > > halting theorem. *lol*   
    > 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 8/23/2024 5:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
    > joes  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".   
    >   
    > 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.   
    >   
    > 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   
    > 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.   
      
   On 8/23/2024 9:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:   
    > So that PO will have no cause to quote me as supporting his case:  what   
    > Sipser understood he was agreeing to was NOT what PO interprets it as   
    > meaning.  Sipser would not agree that the conclusion applies in PO's   
    > HHH(DDD) scenario, where DDD halts.   
      
   On 5/2/2025 9:16 PM, Mike Terry wrote:   
    > PO is trying to interpret Sipser's quote:   
    >   
    > --- Start Sipser quote   
    >       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.   
    > --- End Sipser quote   
    >   
    > The following interpretation is ok:   
    >   
    >      If H is given input D, and while simulating D gathers enough   
    >      information to deduce that UTM(D) would never halt, then   
    >      H can abort its simulation and decide D never halts.   
    >   
    > I'd say it's obvious that this is what Sipser is saying, because it's   
    > natural, correct, and relevant to what was being discussed (valid   
    > strategy for a simulating halt decider).  It is trivial to check that   
    > what my interpretation says is valid:   
    >   
    >     if UTM(D) would never halt, then D never halts, so if H(D) returns   
    >     never_halts then that is the correct answer for the input.  QED  :)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)