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

On 5/6/2025 2:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.mei.2025 om 19:49 schreef olcott:

On 5/6/2025 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/5/25 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 8:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/25 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2025 8:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
...

As explained above, UTM(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) simulates Ĥ run with input Ĥ (having the
same halting behaviour) and Ĥ run with input Ĥ HALTS.  So embedded_H does
not "gather enough information to deduce that UTM(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) would never
halt".  THAT IS JUST A FANTASY THAT YOU HAVE.
>
UTM(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) DOES halt, so embedded_H can't possibly gather information
that genuinely implies it DOESN'T halt.  The explanation is obvious:
embedded_H gathers information that *YOU* believe implies that UTM(⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩)
would never halt, but *YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG*.

>
He used to claim that false ("does not halt") was the correct answer,
/even though/ the computation in question halts!  Those were simpler
days.  Of course cranks will never admit to having been wrong about
anything other than a detail or two, so anyone who could be bothered
could try to get him to retract that old claim.
>

>
<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>
>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
In other words embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is correct to
reject its input if
>
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Would not halt.

>
Nope, because that isn't the input that it was given.

>
*Wrong*
<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
>
*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
simulated D (the actual input)
never stop running unless aborted (hypothetical H/D pair)
>

>
No, that is changing the input.
>

>
*would never stop running unless aborted*
means the hypothetical same HHH that DD calls
except that this HHH does not abort.
>

 Which makes it a fundamentally different HHH.

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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer