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

Am Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:02:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/27/2025 1:57 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/27/2025 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>

</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.

Precious.

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.

I'm sure he understands the notion as a CS prof.

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*

It's unlikely that he agreed to your misinterpretation.

*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.

In fact H does abort, so the hypothetical does not apply. You are
changing the input.

He agreed that your H satisfies your made-up criteria that has
nothing to do with the halting problem criteria:

 
Both Ben and Professor Sipser agree that HHH(DD)
meet the criteria that derives the conclusion.
   PROVEN Simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until

Until it doesn't anymore.

   PROVEN H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
   running unless aborted

But it is aborted!

   THEN HHH can abort its simulation of DD and correctly report that DD
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

No. Do you think HHH(HHH) halts or not?

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.