Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:56:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ac9b30ba25681db97307d578cc49e3e424e8608c@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:44:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2185630"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vuls34$1bf1j$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6198
Lines: 110

On 4/27/25 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:
>>
>>
>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) 
>> X described as <X> with input Y:
>>
>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the 
>> following mapping:
>>
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>> directly
>>
> 
> Ridiculously stupid trollish reply within the
> context that HHH(DD) must apply the finite string
> transformation rules specified by the x86 language
> to its input DD and this cannot possibly derive
> the behavior of the directly executed DD.
> 
> 

No, and it if did, it just fails to meet that requirement, as it does 
abort its emulation, which is a violation of the behavior specified by 
the x86 langugage.

WHat HHH needs to do is answer according to the transformation of the 
input by those rules, even if it can't do the full transformation itself.

Your problem is you confuse requirements with ability and assume that 
the Halting Function is actually computable.

Sorry, you are just showing your utter ignorance of what you are talking 
about.