Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!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: Turing Computations <are> finite string transformations of inputs
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 15:01:20 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vulutv$1do22$4@dont-email.me>
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$2@dont-email.me> <vuh2a3$tkor$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuhjsk$1h0ma$1@dont-email.me> <vujhmf$36iqv$1@dont-email.me>
 <vujj6s$35hcg$6@dont-email.me> <vujm3c$397q3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vujn04$3a526$3@dont-email.me> <vukio6$646h$5@dont-email.me>
 <vulu92$1bf1j$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 21:01:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a1d054bd592325deef4ca46ca621dc5e";
	logging-data="1499202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zXggSG0QhCXHn23QI2dI8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eNsa85NqQXm5uPSwurSpTQuQDr0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vulu92$1bf1j$9@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5323

On 4/27/2025 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/27/2025 1:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.apr.2025 om 00:33 schreef olcott:
>>> On 4/26/2025 5:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-26 15:28, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2025 4:03 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-04-25 21:28, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 5:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-25 10:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that Turing computable functions are only
>>>>>>>>> allowed to derived their outputs by applying finite string
>>>>>>>>> operations to their inputs then my claim about the behavior
>>>>>>>>> of DD that HHH must report on is completely proven.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're very confused here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Computable functions are *functions*. That is, they are mappings 
>>>>>>>> from a domain to a codomain, neither of which are required to be 
>>>>>>>> strings. Functions don't involve finite string operations at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All Turing Machine based computation applies the/
>>>>>>> finite string transformations specified by the TM
>>>>>>> language to the input finite string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turing machines and computable functions are not the same thing. 
>>>>>> You keep conflating the two. The point of my post was to try to 
>>>>>> get you to be more careful with your terminology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes so I must correct my words to say
>>>>>
>>>>> All Turing Machine based *Computable Functions* apply the
>>>>>  >> finite string transformations specified by the TM
>>>>>  >> language to the input finite string.
>>>>
>>>> Which is just as mangled as your earlier usage. Maybe learn what 
>>>> these things mean...
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> When HHH emulates DD once and then emulates itself
>>> emulating DD according to the finite string transformation
>>> rules specified by the x86 language then HHH 
>>
>> should also analyse Halt7.c and conclude that there is a conditional 
>> abort, which makes the recursion finite and thus there is no need to 
>> abort the simulation. But HHH fails to do this correct analysis and 
>> prematurely aborts the simulation.
> 
> Now it is clear that correct simulation requires that HHH(DD)
> apply the finite string transformations specified by the x96
> language to its input the nonsense about directed execution

Shows that no H exists that satisfies these requirements, as proven by 
Linz and others:


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



> <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 *yet again* you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it 
has been repeatedly proven that he does not:

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.
 >


Your dishonesty knows no bounds.