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

On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2025 9:58 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/4/2025 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>
>

>
And you *CONTINUE* to lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it's been repeated proven that he does not:
>
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.
>
This demonstrates a reckless disregard for the truth on your part.
>

Let the record show that you made no attempt to refute the above, constituting your admission that you are *intentionally* lying to push your agenda.

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.
>

>
In other words, you change the input.
>
Changing the input is not allowed.

 D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*

Which means you're changing the input.
Changing the input is not allowed.

indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
to

What UTM(⟨Ĥ⟩) does, which is halt.