Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 22:38:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8fdac931ef3b717fd740dced158a2e54a2486748@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <11cc09876004107c47467b9481f614f45f450f2c.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvnu9k$3k258$2@dont-email.me>
 <674a661e498281cca55b322cbd5905a1988a6171.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvnvut$3kher$3@dont-email.me>
 <088556c03067d8de7184bf88dd01cc6b8c99ba1b.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo1ni$3l14p$1@dont-email.me>
 <c09f468e8485c22150cedb12a9010b401f292054.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo58a$3lnkd$1@dont-email.me>
 <dc76ef3215a83481dfddc40c466bb9ebc0e77341.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo709$3m1oc$1@dont-email.me>
 <b503e969e23dd1b2a6201ba78c82c9ff7906eaae.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvo9e8$3m1oc$3@dont-email.me>
 <b9cec56c1d257e09fdf8043f02f123a4243de6e1.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvoife$3ofmu$1@dont-email.me>
 <09cea75db07408dc9203aca3fb74408ad3a095b4.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvoubl$3qtsi$1@dont-email.me>
 <bc4fb153ff914177dba706ce6e0dfb467e2126eb.camel@gmail.com>
 <vvp04i$3r5li$3@dont-email.me>
 <853816e160c7b3fe75c71f0728e72989d9fb2e41.camel@gmail.com>
 <87cycdojyq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vvtaq5$14pca$26@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 03:53:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="124170"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvtaq5$14pca$26@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/12/25 1:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2025 11:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 20:56 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/2025 8:44 PM, wij wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> Try to convert it to TM language to know you know nothing.
>> ...
>>>>> To refute the HP, you need to understand what it exactly means in TM.
>>>>
>>>> I have known this for 22 years.
>>>
>>> A working TM. Build it explicitly from transition function, then explain
>>> your derivation. You know nothing.
>>
>> He did, in 2018, claim to have exactly such a thing:
>>
>>    "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
>>    specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
>>    Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."
>>
>>    "I [...] encoded all of the exact TMD instructions of the Linz Turing
>>    machine H that correctly decides halting for its fully encoded input
>>    pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)."
>>
>>    "I provide the exact ⊢* wildcard states after the Linz H.q0 and after
>>    Ĥ.qx (Linz incorrectly uses q0 twice) showing exactly how the actual
>>    Linz H would correctly decide the actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)."
>>
>> Of course, no such "fully encoded Turing Machines" were ever produced.
>> He spent months rowing back this claim, eventually settling on the
>> notion that he was using "poetic licence" rather than admit he was wrong.
>>
> 
> <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>
> 
> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>  > ...D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
>  > H /can/ correctly determine this silly criterion (in this one case)...
> 
> 

Which means the correct simulation of the exact input D that was given 
to H, which WILL use the algorithm of that H, so if H ultimately return 
non-halting, as you claim is correct, then the correct emulation (which 
isn't done by H) will show that, and thus H is wrong.

Your problem is your "D" ends up not being the required program, and 
neither is your H.

Thus, your whole argument is based on category errors and lies.