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

On 4/28/25 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2025 1:57 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/27/2025 2:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 9:55 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:

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

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

On 4/26/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 5:11 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:

>
<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 again you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it has been proven that he doesn't:
>
>
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.
>

>
That professor Sipser did not have the time to
understand the significance of what he agreed to
does not entail that he did not agree with my
meanings of what he agreed to.
>
Professor Sipser did not even have the time to
understand the notion of recursive emulation.
Without this it is impossible to see the significance
of my work.

>
In other words, he did not you agree what you think he agreed to, and your posting the above to imply that he did is a form of lying.
>

>
Let the record show that the above was trimmed from the original reply, signaling your intent to lie about what was stated.
>

>
*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.
>

>
He agreed that your H satisfies your made-up criteria that has nothing to do with the halting problem criteria:

  Both Ben and Professor Sipser agree that HHH(DD)
meet the criteria that derives the conclusion.
    PROVEN
   Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
    PROVEN
   H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
   running unless aborted

FALSE, as this is not a valid statement, as it is based on a contradiction.
H is a DEFINED machine at the point of the question, and thus either DOES or DOES NOT abort. If H aborts and returns 0, then it is a FACT that the H that D calls aborts and returns 0, and thus D Halts, and thus H can not correctly claim that it has proved that it doesn't.
Your arguement is based on the *LIE* that every D is the same input regardless of the H it calls, but D, to be a program, needs to include the code of the H it calls, and thus changes when you change H

    THEN
   HHH can abort its simulation of DD and correctly report that DD
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
 

FALSE. Since point 2 was not proven
All you are doing is proving you don't understand that basic nature of programs, and the fact you keep repeating it for years proves either you are such an idiot you can not learn that simple fact, or such a pathological liar that you don't care if it is a fact or not, you just make you claim with a reckless disregard for that truth, or both.