Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Wasell <wasell@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 10:36:00 +0200
Organization: Never You Mind, Inc.
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <MPG.40c4fbcb474992459896fd@reader.eternal-september.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org> <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de> <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me> <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org> <v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me> <v38g31$2foi0$11@i2pn2.org> <v38gi5$1bndb$3@dont-email.me> <v38ici$2fohv$2@i2pn2.org> <v38j17$1c8ir$2@dont-email.me> <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org> <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me> <v39agi$1jiql$1@dont-email.me> <v39v3h$1mtd9$5@dont-email.me> <v3b9kj$2im02$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bale$222n5$1@dont-email.me> <v3bbs2$2im01$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bcre$22a8n$1@dont-email.me> <v3bduk$2im01$2@i2pn2.org> <v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me> <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org> <v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me> <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org> <v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me> <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org> <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me> <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org> <v3dkf2$2e2po$1@dont-email.me> <v3dmnc$2lfup$3@i2pn2.org> <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 10:36:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77e9e6e01ce03ddeeb17047b4fede0b2";
	logging-data="2841433"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hNMzoAXiiU4TXQt0hzAHi"
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KK2gejApgEpQfrSyUyDgJEuiop8=
Bytes: 3823

On Fri, 31 May 2024 18:57:57 -0500, in article <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me>, 
olcott wrote:
> 
> On 5/31/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

[...]

>> Never said it could. But haven't looked hard enough to be willing to say 
>> it can't, but then, who cares, it doesn't say a thing about the real 
>> halting problem, since H's simulation isn't "correct" by a definition 
>> that relates simulation to non-halting behavior,
> 
> "...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
> Linz(1990:234)
> 
> *If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
> *final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*

You keep using this quote as if it means that the /only/ way a TM
can halt, is if it enters a final state. You never quote the 
context:

  "A Turing machine is said to halt whenever it reaches a
  configuration for which \delta is not defined; this is possible
  because \delta is a partial function. In fact, we will assume that
  no transitions are defined for any final state, so the Turing
  machine will halt whenever it enters a final state." 
    (p. 227 in my copy)

This means that a TM /will/ halt if it enters a final state, but it
can also halt in other states. This interpretation is confirmed in
other places in Linz:

  "The machine can halt in a nonfinal state or it can enter an
  infinite loop and never halt. [...] we halt in a nonfinal state.
  [...] the machine will halt in the nonfinal state q_0 , since
  \delta(q_0,1) is undefined." (p. 232)

  "[...] the computation will halt in a nonfinal state." (p. 233)

  "Other input not in the language will also lead to a nonfinal
  halting state" (p. 234)

  "[...] that will halt in a nonfinal state q_n if x < y." (p. 237)

  etc, etc.

Can I expect you to never use this deceptive out-of-context quote
ever again?