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 --- MT
Date: Sun, 4 May 2025 23:45:07 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <vv9c82$3h92p$9@dont-email.me>
References: <TuuNP.2706011$nb1.2053729@fx01.ams4>
 <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>
 <vv5e46$3rtqo$1@dont-email.me>
 <2qydnbbWA6CAGIv1nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87frhjamvt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vv93tq$383jd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv99hg$3h92p$1@dont-email.me> <vv99s8$3hjhu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv9aae$3h92p$5@dont-email.me> <vv9b82$3ifj7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv9bg8$3h92p$7@dont-email.me> <vv9c09$3ifj7$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 May 2025 05:45:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="18d110b57402f35c65b5688042d33321";
	logging-data="3712089"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18g9qoRSrJ7VYWHyafxwAUv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7o4nE4CC5p+uy3PbHfrwuifvHio=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vv9c09$3ifj7$3@dont-email.me>

On 5/4/2025 11:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/4/2025 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2025 10:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2025 9:58 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/4/2025 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/2025 8:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> As explained above, UTM(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) simulates Ĥ run with input Ĥ 
>>>>>>>>> (having the
>>>>>>>>> same halting behaviour) and Ĥ run with input Ĥ HALTS.  So 
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H does
>>>>>>>>> not "gather enough information to deduce that UTM(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) 
>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>> halt".  THAT IS JUST A FANTASY THAT YOU HAVE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> UTM(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) DOES halt, so embedded_H can't possibly gather 
>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>> that genuinely implies it DOESN'T halt.  The explanation is 
>>>>>>>>> obvious:
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H gathers information that *YOU* believe implies that 
>>>>>>>>> UTM(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
>>>>>>>>> would never halt, but *YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He used to claim that false ("does not halt") was the correct 
>>>>>>>> answer,
>>>>>>>> /even though/ the computation in question halts!  Those were 
>>>>>>>> simpler
>>>>>>>> days.  Of course cranks will never admit to having been wrong about
>>>>>>>> anything other than a detail or two, so anyone who could be 
>>>>>>>> bothered
>>>>>>>> could try to get him to retract that old claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <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 you *CONTINUE* to lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you 
>>>>>> when it's been repeated 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth on your part.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let the record show that you made no attempt to refute the above, 
>>>
>>> I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS
>>> It is true that he did not take the time to understand
>>> recursive emulation thus could not possibly see the
>>> significance of my work without this.
>>>
>>> THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE DID NOT AGREED
>>> TO LET ME QUOTE HIS AGREEMENT WITH MY WORDS.
>>
>> But you present that quote to imply that he agreed with what you 
>> meant, and it is proven above that he did not.
>>
> 
> I ONLY agree that he and I have meant the exact
> same thing on the above quoted words.

FALSE:

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.