Re: Functions computed by Turing Machines MUST apply finite string transformations to inputs --- MT

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.