Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:46:11 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <vun87k$2m24h$2@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:46:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f1eeb46f8b0244db43944d81f161af72";
	logging-data="2820241"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KPbkoxe06WKeABnAup9iQ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oNvkbIMUvlIwsXrL8PTX7Dk9cV0=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vuls34$1bf1j$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5992

Op 27.apr.2025 om 20:12 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 
> 

So we agree that no algorithm exists that can determine for all possible 
inputs whether the input specifies a program that (according to the 
semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed.
Correct?