Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Functions computed by Turing Machines MUST apply finite string
 transformations to inputs --- MT
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 15:44:41 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6c627041e7df24bb64442ad7e0ee03db6a74aab6@i2pn2.org>
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 15:44:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3486197"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3972
Lines: 42

Am Wed, 07 May 2025 10:03:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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.
....if it, the simulator, didn't abort. The input DD that is being
simulated still calls the same real HHH that does abort.

>      *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.
So a non-input.

> If it did not do this and simply kept simulating a non-terminating input
> it would break the requirement that itself must halt.
If it does do this it breaks the requirement that it must return the value
of a full simulation.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.