Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 09:29:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0a02d4e920715b27f6f622565cc06a9b29b4f2c1@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vua9oi$2lub6$1@dont-email.me>
	<vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me> <vufi61$3k099$1@dont-email.me>
	<vugddv$b21g$2@dont-email.me>
	<0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org>
	<vugvr3$pke9$8@dont-email.me>
	<4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org>
	<vuj18i$2lf64$6@dont-email.me>
	<f0d3f2e87d9a4e0b0f445f60a33d529f41a4fcf7@i2pn2.org>
	<vuj55m$2lf64$10@dont-email.me> <vuj8h3$2uahf$3@dont-email.me>
	<vujfuu$35hcg$1@dont-email.me>
	<65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org>
	<vujlj0$3a526$1@dont-email.me> <vujln7$32om9$8@dont-email.me>
	<vujmmm$3a526$2@dont-email.me> <vujmrj$32om9$9@dont-email.me>
	<vujtcb$3gsgr$1@dont-email.me> <vuju44$3hnda$1@dont-email.me>
	<vuk47o$3qkbb$1@dont-email.me> <vuk6b6$3l184$1@dont-email.me>
	<vuls34$1bf1j$4@dont-email.me> <vulum1$1do22$3@dont-email.me>
	<vun248$2ett4$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 09:29:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2228845"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:02:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 4/27/2025 1:57 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/27/2025 2:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2025 9:55 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2025 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2025 7:35 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 5:11 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>

>>>>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And again you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when
>>>>>>>>>> it has been proven that he doesn't:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > 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.
Precious.

>>>>>>>>> That professor Sipser did not have the time to understand the
>>>>>>>>> significance of what he agreed to does not entail that he did
>>>>>>>>> not agree with my meanings of what he agreed to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Professor Sipser did not even have the time to understand the
>>>>>>>>> notion of recursive emulation. Without this it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>> see the significance of my work.
I'm sure he understands the notion as a CS prof.

>>>>>>>> In other words, he did not you agree what you think he agreed to,
>>>>>>>> and your posting the above to imply that he did is a form of
>>>>>>>> lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>> Let the record show that the above was trimmed from the original
>>>> reply, signaling your intent to lie about what was stated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> *He agreed to MY meaning of these words*
It's unlikely that he agreed to your misinterpretation.

>>>>> *and Ben agreed too*
>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
>>>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>>>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were
>>>>>  > not halted.  That much is a truism.
In fact H does abort, so the hypothetical does not apply. You are
changing the input.

>>>> He agreed that your H satisfies your made-up criteria that has
>>>> nothing to do with the halting problem criteria:
> 
> Both Ben and Professor Sipser agree that HHH(DD)
> meet the criteria that derives the conclusion.
>    PROVEN Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>    until
Until it doesn't anymore.

>    PROVEN H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>    running unless aborted
But it is aborted!

>    THEN HHH can abort its simulation of DD and correctly report that DD
>    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
No. Do you think HHH(HHH) halts or not?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.