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

On 5/7/2025 3:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 1:55 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/7/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 10:44 AM, joes wrote:

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.

HHH needs to predict what would happen if this very same
HHH did not abort its input.

>
Category error.  Algorithms do one thing and one thing only.

 And by mathematical induction they can make correct
predictions about behavior.

As well an incorrect predictions, as HHH(DD) does not correctly predict that DD will halt when executed directly as required.

 It looks like I have to go back to the dumbed down
version of DDD(). DD() is just way over all of your
heads.
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 DDD correctly emulated HHH

A lie, as you have previously admitted on the record:
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH