Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down

On Fri, 31 May 2024 18:57:57 -0500, in article <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me>,
olcott wrote:

 
On 5/31/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

[...]

Never said it could. But haven't looked hard enough to be willing to say
it can't, but then, who cares, it doesn't say a thing about the real
halting problem, since H's simulation isn't "correct" by a definition
that relates simulation to non-halting behavior,

 
"...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
Linz(1990:234)
 
*If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
*final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*

You keep using this quote as if it means that the /only/ way a TM
can halt, is if it enters a final state. You never quote the
context:

  "A Turing machine is said to halt whenever it reaches a
  configuration for which \delta is not defined; this is possible
  because \delta is a partial function. In fact, we will assume that
  no transitions are defined for any final state, so the Turing
  machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
    (p. 227 in my copy)

This means that a TM /will/ halt if it enters a final state, but it
can also halt in other states. This interpretation is confirmed in
other places in Linz:

  "The machine can halt in a nonfinal state or it can enter an
  infinite loop and never halt. [...] we halt in a nonfinal state.
  [...] the machine will halt in the nonfinal state q_0 , since
  \delta(q_0,1) is undefined." (p. 232)

  "[...] the computation will halt in a nonfinal state." (p. 233)

  "Other input not in the language will also lead to a nonfinal
  halting state" (p. 234)

  "[...] that will halt in a nonfinal state q_n if x < y." (p. 237)

  etc, etc.

Can I expect you to never use this deceptive out-of-context quote
ever again?