1. Forum
  2. Newsgroups
  3. comp.lang.c

  • Claude AI found a key ambiguity in the words that professor Sipseragreed to

    From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Fri Oct 10 12:39:51 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    This may finally justify Ben's Objection

    <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>

    I certainly will not quote professor Sipser on this change
    unless and until he agrees to it.

    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
    that [its simulated] D specifies a non-halting sequence
    of configurations.

    Because the whole paragraph is within the context of
    simulating halt decider H and its simulated input D it
    seems unreasonable yet possible to interpret the last
    D as a directly executed D.
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mikko@mikko.levanto@iki.fi to comp.lang.c on Sat Oct 11 11:17:07 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 2025-10-10 17:39:51 +0000, olcott said:

    This may finally justify Ben's Objection

    <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>

    I certainly will not quote professor Sipser on this change
    unless and until he agrees to it.

    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
    that [its simulated] D specifies a non-halting sequence
    of configurations.

    Because the whole paragraph is within the context of
    simulating halt decider H and its simulated input D it
    seems unreasonable yet possible to interpret the last
    D as a directly executed D.

    The behaviour specified by D is what it is regardless whether it
    is executed or how it is executed. The the phrase "its simulated
    D" simply means the particular D that is simulated and not any
    other program that may happen to have the same name.

    If the simulated D is different from the D given as input to H the
    answer that is correct about the simulated D may be wrong about the
    D given as input.
    --
    Mikko

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2