Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs

On 4/27/25 2:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 9:55 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 7:35 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 5:11 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:

>
<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 again you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it has been proven that he doesn't:
>
>
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have

 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to

me.
>

>
That professor Sipser did not have the time to
understand the significance of what he agreed to
does not entail that he did not agree with my
meanings of what he agreed to.
>
Professor Sipser did not even have the time to
understand the notion of recursive emulation.
Without this it is impossible to see the significance
of my work.

>
In other words, he did not you agree what you think he agreed to, and your posting the above to imply that he did is a form of lying.
>

>
Let the record show that the above was trimmed from the original reply, signaling your intent to lie about what was stated.
>

>
*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.
>

>
He agreed that your H satisfies your made-up criteria that has nothing to do with the halting problem criteria:
>
>
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
>

 Ridiculously stupid trollish reply within the
context that HHH(DD) must apply the finite string
transformation rules specified by the x86 language
to its input DD and this cannot possibly derive
the behavior of the directly executed DD.
 

No, and it if did, it just fails to meet that requirement, as it does abort its emulation, which is a violation of the behavior specified by the x86 langugage.
WHat HHH needs to do is answer according to the transformation of the input by those rules, even if it can't do the full transformation itself.
Your problem is you confuse requirements with ability and assume that the Halting Function is actually computable.
Sorry, you are just showing your utter ignorance of what you are talking about.