Re: Turing Computations <are> finite string transformations of inputs

On 4/27/25 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2025 1:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.apr.2025 om 00:33 schreef olcott:

On 4/26/2025 5:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-04-26 15:28, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 4:03 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-04-25 21:28, olcott wrote:

On 4/25/2025 5:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-04-25 10:31, olcott wrote:
>

Once we understand that Turing computable functions are only
allowed to derived their outputs by applying finite string
operations to their inputs then my claim about the behavior
of DD that HHH must report on is completely proven.

>
You're very confused here.
>
Computable functions are *functions*. That is, they are mappings from a domain to a codomain, neither of which are required to be strings. Functions don't involve finite string operations at all.
>

>
All Turing Machine based computation applies the/
finite string transformations specified by the TM
language to the input finite string.

>
Turing machines and computable functions are not the same thing. You keep conflating the two. The point of my post was to try to get you to be more careful with your terminology.
>
André
>

>
Yes so I must correct my words to say
>
All Turing Machine based *Computable Functions* apply the
 >> finite string transformations specified by the TM
 >> language to the input finite string.

>
Which is just as mangled as your earlier usage. Maybe learn what these things mean...
>
André
>

>
When HHH emulates DD once and then emulates itself
emulating DD according to the finite string transformation
rules specified by the x86 language then HHH

>
should also analyse Halt7.c and conclude that there is a conditional abort, which makes the recursion finite and thus there is no need to abort the simulation. But HHH fails to do this correct analysis and prematurely aborts the simulation.

 Now it is clear that correct simulation requires that HHH(DD)
apply the finite string transformations specified by the x96
language to its input the nonsense about directed execution
is finally unequivocally refuted. The first part of the following
is proven to be correct.

Which means that it isn't allowed to stop it emuation.
What in the direct execution broke the rules?

 The second part is self-evidently correct to several
C programmers, thus HHH is correct to reject DD as non-halting.
 <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>
 

But since D calls the H that does abort and return 0, H can't prove that the correct simulation of this input won't halt, since it does.
You are just proving your igorance of the topic, and that you are just a pathological liar that doesn't care about what is true as you just don't care about what is actually true.