Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Computable Functions --- finite string transformation rules
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 16:45:10 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <vujgkl$32om9$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vu8g3q$v0qa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8lse$vn9b$1@dont-email.me> <vu8og4$13jl5$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d9ae3ac08bbbe4407fc3612441fc2032f949a3d@i2pn2.org>
 <vub168$3clpn$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ac75991b443ba53d52960ddb1932524dea8e03f@i2pn2.org>
 <40b048f71fe2ed2a8ef11d2d587c765c8fcbc977@i2pn2.org>
 <vucrgq$148pf$1@dont-email.me> <vudkt8$1ona3$2@dont-email.me>
 <vudp39$1rhdn$1@dont-email.me> <vudrgb$20gck$1@dont-email.me>
 <vue2fb$27hl3$1@dont-email.me> <vue464$28iho$2@dont-email.me>
 <vue57b$27hl3$3@dont-email.me> <vue8qm$2d7t8$1@dont-email.me>
 <cb382175aa6cc9a806dedc1d2bcfbd916dfaf1b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vuejgn$2md4c$3@dont-email.me>
 <ae8fce7ec0639d76c87bf1af0dfbc2a806053899@i2pn2.org>
 <vugucr$pke9$5@dont-email.me> <vui77f$217h6$2@dont-email.me>
 <vuj538$2lf64$9@dont-email.me> <vuj88g$2uahf$2@dont-email.me>
 <vujd67$335tl$1@dont-email.me>
 <99367baaadfd647c1d75f4236345a3243a439a0b@i2pn2.org>
 <vujgdj$35hcg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 22:45:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0137d90e990b2d35ee9d34fffa59920d";
	logging-data="3236553"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DwqzReVv4B++s1+HVpoYA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RBOmLJnfzsX2gBHCdM/wAHICKls=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vujgdj$35hcg$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7135

On 4/26/2025 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/26/2025 3:23 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 14:46:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 4/26/2025 1:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 4/26/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 25.apr.2025 om 23:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 8:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:03:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>>>>>>> The program EE(){ HHH(EE); } also halts and cannot be simulated by
>>>>>>>> HHH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH cannot possibly do this without violating the rules of the x86
>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>> HHH already violates the rules of the x86 language by prematurely
>>>>>> aborting the halting program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules of the x86 language yet no
>>>>> one can point out which rules are violated
>>>>
>>>> It has been pointed out many times. It is against the rules of the x86
>>>> language to abort a halting function.
>>>
>>> You remains stupidly wrong about this because you refuse to show what
>>> step of DD is not emulated by HHH according to the finite string
>>> transformation rules specified by the x86 language.
> 
>> All instructions after the abort are not emulated.
>>
> 
> Still stupidly wrong.
> 
> *The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*
> 
> <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>
> 

But not to what you think he agreed to:


On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> 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 <noreply@example.org> 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.