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: Wed, 7 May 2025 14:01:33 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <vvg75t$15i5e$1@dont-email.me>
References: <TuuNP.2706011$nb1.2053729@fx01.ams4>
 <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>
 <d3d98f966d50e250c233a6e883a4947c885bd99f@i2pn2.org>
 <vvbsjf$1us1f$5@dont-email.me>
 <313c6e5a3816ff483563120b589b22d1bc190c2f@i2pn2.org>
 <vvdi2p$3cbpq$7@dont-email.me> <vvdmam$3huo6$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvdn4i$3k2gc$2@dont-email.me> <vvfbt6$ubvt$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvfi2a$10b0m$4@dont-email.me> <vvfsor$130t3$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 20:01:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0";
	logging-data="1231022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ofDoxHbuUBbSAA2Dzgna5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kxZ7xu2/Jbz47dGmesUrVq9vKVY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvfsor$130t3$2@dont-email.me>

On 5/7/2025 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 7:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/7/2025 6:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 06.mei.2025 om 21:15 schreef olcott:
>>>> None-the-less it is the words that the best selling
>>>> author of theory of computation textbooks agreed to:
>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>>
>>>> is the hypothetical HHH/DD pair where the same HHH
>>>> that DD calls does not abort the simulation of its input.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, this change makes it fundamentally different.
>>> I can't believe that you are so stupid to think that modifying a 
>>> program does not make a program different. Are you trolling?
>>
>> Given that he's shown he doesn't understand (and this list is by no 
>> means exhaustive):
>>
>> * what requirements are
>> * what correct means
>> * what true means
>> * what a proof is
>> * how proof by contradiction works
>>
>> I wouldn't put it past him that he actually believes it.  He'll say 
>> anything to avoid admitting to himself that he wasted that last 22 
>> years not understanding what he was working on.
>>
>> (Anyone else that wants to add to this list, feel free)
> 
> A simulating halt decider must correctly
> predict *what the behavior would be* if it
> did not abort its simulation.

In other words, what UTM(DD) would do, which is halt.

> 
> The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks
> Professor Sipser agreed with this.
> 
> 
> <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
> 
>      *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>       means that HHH examines what the behavior of DD *would be*
>       if it never aborted its simulation. This is a different
>       hypothetical HHH/DD pair than the actual HHH/DD pair.
> 


And you *continue* to lie that he agrees with you when it's been 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.


> If it did not do this and simply kept simulating
> a non-terminating input it would break the requirement
> that itself must halt.
> 

And instead, it break the requirement that the input cannot be changed.

Changing the input is not allowed.