Sujet : Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 27. Apr 2025, 03:19:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vuk47o$3qkbb$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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 again you lie:
You try to get away saying this without even
attempting to point out a mistake is the kind of
*reckless disregard of the truth*
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/reckless%20disregard%20of%20the%20truth#*that loses libel cases*
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer