Re: Computable Functions --- finite string transformation rules

On 4/26/2025 4:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 3:45 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 3:23 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 14:46:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/26/2025 1:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:28 schreef olcott:

On 4/26/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.apr.2025 om 23:21 schreef olcott:

On 4/25/2025 8:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:03:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>

The program EE(){ HHH(EE); } also halts and cannot be simulated by
HHH.
>

HHH cannot possibly do this without violating the rules of the x86
language.

HHH already violates the rules of the x86 language by prematurely
aborting the halting program.

>
Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules of the x86 language yet no
one can point out which rules are violated

>
It has been pointed out many times. It is against the rules of the x86
language to abort a halting function.

>
You remains stupidly wrong about this because you refuse to show what
step of DD is not emulated by HHH according to the finite string
transformation rules specified by the x86 language.

>

All instructions after the abort are not emulated.
>

>
Still stupidly wrong.
>
*The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*
>
<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>
>

>
But not to what you think he agreed to:
>

>
I don't give a rat's ass about other people's
opinions of what he agreed to.

 Not opinion, but fact:
 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.
 

*A more important truism*
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
 > were not halted.  That much is a truism.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer