Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 06:55:09 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5ed86fcdf37ceb8c7bbcf8d9ff8aa24261585da3@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; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:16:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2241325"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vun248$2ett4$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 4/28/25 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
> 
>    PROVEN
>    H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>    running unless aborted

FALSE, as this is not a valid statement, as it is based on a contradiction.

H is a DEFINED machine at the point of the question, and thus either 
DOES or DOES NOT abort. If H aborts and returns 0, then it is a FACT 
that the H that D calls aborts and returns 0, and thus D Halts, and thus 
H can not correctly claim that it has proved that it doesn't.

Your arguement is based on the *LIE* that every D is the same input 
regardless of the H it calls, but D, to be a program, needs to include 
the code of the H it calls, and thus changes when you change H

> 
>    THEN
>    HHH can abort its simulation of DD and correctly report that DD
>    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> 

FALSE. Since point 2 was not proven


All you are doing is proving you don't understand that basic nature of 
programs, and the fact you keep repeating it for years proves either you 
are such an idiot you can not learn that simple fact, or such a 
pathological liar that you don't care if it is a fact or not, you just 
make you claim with a reckless disregard for that truth, or both.