Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Functions computed by Turing Machines MUST apply finite string
 transformations to inputs +++
Date: Sun, 4 May 2025 12:57:06 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <vv8691$2cska$2@dont-email.me>
References: <TuuNP.2706011$nb1.2053729@fx01.ams4>
 <vuivtb$2lf64$3@dont-email.me> <vungtl$2v2kr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuoaac$3jn5n$5@dont-email.me> <vuq81v$1hjka$1@dont-email.me>
 <vutefq$gmbi$3@dont-email.me>
 <991dde3a60e1485815b789520c7149e7842d18f2@i2pn2.org>
 <vuti3c$jq57$1@dont-email.me> <vutmr6$nvbg$2@dont-email.me>
 <vutv7r$v5pn$4@dont-email.me> <vuu73m$151a8$3@dont-email.me>
 <vuuej8$1cqp7$1@dont-email.me> <vuur2n$1qe3m$2@dont-email.me>
 <vv0352$2ur4q$1@dont-email.me> <vv0kpi$3djh5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv13ro$3r3ei$1@dont-email.me> <vv160a$3smj7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv18s7$3uer0$1@dont-email.me> <vv1b03$4a4k$2@dont-email.me>
 <vv1bav$3ra6l$7@dont-email.me> <vv1frt$97hp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv1gfu$3ra6l$8@dont-email.me> <vv1js4$d4ik$1@dont-email.me>
 <-GOdnZvgEPn-84j1nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vv4alu$2t388$1@dont-email.me>
 <K2ednc0OY5rg-Iv1nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vv5rpm$8mnn$1@dont-email.me> <vv61pm$c2hj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv83ak$29nkb$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 18:57:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="766bf062aa37d03efbb568a26a566bf9";
	logging-data="2519690"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+cZJIipP4GzONGV0aXaTzV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iugvC9rMA2lp1lNyQXT6H5T4jDE=
In-Reply-To: <vv83ak$29nkb$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/4/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/3/2025 4:28 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/3/2025 3:45 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>> I am conscious that you have already explained to me (twice!) that Mr 
>>> O's approach is aimed not at overturning the overarching 
>>> indecidability proof but a mere detail of Linz's proof. 
>>> Unfortunately, your explanations have not managed to establish a firm 
>>> root in what passes for my brain. This may be because I'm too dense 
>>> to grok them, or possibly it's because your explanations are TOAST 
>>> (see above).
>>>
>>> You have said, I think, that Olcott doesn't need a universal decider 
>>> in order to prove his point. But a less ambitious decider doesn't 
>>> contradict Linz's proof, surely? So once more for luck, what exactly 
>>> would PO be establishing with his non-universal and impatient 
>>> simulator if he could only get it to work?
>>
>> The core issue is that PO, despise being nearly 70 and having worked 
>> as a programmer, fundamentally doesn't understand proof by contradiction.
>>
> 
> The actual issue is the NO ONE here (or perhaps anywhere)
> sufficiently understands the key details about
> COMPUTING THE MAPPING FROM AN INPUT TO AN OUTPUT.
> 
> Many here know that a mapping from the input must be
> computed. 

False.  There is no requirement that a mapping is computable.  The 
halting function is one such mapping, as Linz and others have proved and 
you have *explictly* agreed is correct.


> What they don't know are ALL of the tiny
> detailed steps required to compute this mapping.
> 

And if the mapping isn't computable, like the halting function, there 
are no such steps.

> They simply guess that because DD(DD) halts that
> DD correctly simulated by HHH must also halt.

A correct simulation is stipulated to be one that exactly matches the 
behavior of the machine to be simulated.

DD is not correctly simulated by HHH, as the last instruction simulated 
is not simulated correctly, because the x86 language requires any 
executed instruction other than a HLT to be followed by the execution of 
the next instruction.

We also know that "DD correctly simulated by HHH" is PO-speak for 
"Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
subsequently running HHH(DD)", as you have agreed and given permission 
to replace the former with the later.

This means that you're changing the input.

Changing the input is not allowed.

> 
> They cannot provide these detailed steps of the
> execution trace of each machine instruction showing
> exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH halts
> BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE WRONG AND ONLY PLAYING HEAD GAMES.

That you don't understand requirements doesn't make it a head game.