Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: A computable function that reports on the behavior of its actual self is not allowed Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 11:41:31 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 18:41:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="822a7b45c10435b9354ed3bfb60d5b64"; logging-data="3756020"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/nOjKcTOSstnuRMnn1qEu" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:HcMQPT9iy8bL0MEVmjhN9h7YpPY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4328 On 5/13/2024 10:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 13.mei.2024 om 16:44 schreef olcott: >> On 5/13/2024 9:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 13.mei.2024 om 16:10 schreef olcott: >>>> On 5/13/2024 8:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 13.mei.2024 om 15:39 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 5/13/2024 4:34 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 12.mei.2024 om 21:27 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in >>>>>>>> computability >>>>>>>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is >>>>>>>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the >>>>>>>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can >>>>>>>> return the >>>>>>>> corresponding output. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A computable function that reports on the behavior of its actual >>>>>>>> self (or reports on the behavior of its caller) is not allowed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, olcott uses his authority to create a new problem. Why would >>>>>>> anybody be interested in such limitation? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The definition of computable function is an axiomatic basis >>>>>> not any mere authority. >>>>> >>>>> I was referring to the "is not allowed". If olcott uses his >>>>> authority to introduce a new axiom with this sentence, a new >>>>> problem is created. Who is interested in a system with this new >>>>> limitation? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No decider can take an actual Turing Machine as its input. >>>> >>> >>> Nobody is interested in this trivial remark. >>> A decider can have the description of a Turing machine as its input. >>> The decider should decide about the actual behaviour of this machine, >>> not about the way that the decider pleases to simulate the input, >>> because that would tell at most something about the simulator, not >>> about the input. >> >> I see that you either don't want an honest dialogue or cannot >> understand the underlying subject matter well enough to provide >> an accurate review. >> > > It is a pity to see that olcott does not understand the words well > enough for his own benefit. As soon as he does not understand it, he > thinks it is dishonest. It might be impossible to explain it to him in > even simpler words. > In this way he will never understand what is said, so he stays with his > pointless remarks. > Things that someone could say that doesn't understand the subject matter oneself. An honest dialogue provides reasoning behind any assertions. A less than honest dialogue makes dogmatic assertions that do not include any supporting reasoning. A dishonest dialogue fails to ever provide reasoning behind dogmatic assertions even when requested and often adds insults and ad hominem attacks instead of any supporting reasoning. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer