Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:02:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <vun248$2ett4$5@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org>
 <vugvr3$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 07:02:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc4092dca5685a99a96dd309586b7dc0";
	logging-data="2586532"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ZGoK1YXCp9zF0dtqqKnKL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:smm3UQPShy0+U6dOy20M3Gn/80I=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250427-6, 4/27/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vulum1$1do22$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5918

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

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



-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits
a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer