Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs

On 4/26/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 7:35 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:

>
*He agreed to MY meaning of these words*
>
<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>
>

 *and Ben agreed too*
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.

And you don't understand what Ben said, as he himself has pointed out.

 

>
And again you lie:

 You try to get away saying this without even
attempting to point out a mistake is the kind of

No, that is YOUR tactic. The errors *HAVE* been pointed out, and ignored, showing you KNOW you argument is flawed, but you just don't care.

 *reckless disregard of the truth*
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/ reckless%20disregard%20of%20the%20truth#
 *that loses libel cases*
 

Right, and it is YOUR RECKLESS disregard for the truth that would crash any attempt at you trying to claim libel, as Truth is an absolute defense against libel.