Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Computable Functions --- OUTPUTS MUST CORRESPOND TO INPUTS
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:25:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6d9ae3ac08bbbe4407fc3612441fc2032f949a3d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vt6lmk$1djk6$1@dont-email.me>
	<vt7tj4$2iso2$1@dont-email.me> <vt9j0j$1snb$2@dont-email.me>
	<vtai1c$11kqr$1@dont-email.me> <vtajkf$10asg$2@dont-email.me>
	<vtbe3g$1vs00$1@dont-email.me>
	<852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org>
	<vth52t$3in23$9@dont-email.me> <vth557$3a127$7@dont-email.me>
	<vth8lr$3n2du$2@dont-email.me>
	<a8ab995b650b894cbfb635478f7406c4eee4d187@i2pn2.org>
	<vthqtc$5g2e$2@dont-email.me>
	<63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org>
	<vtit6a$15e5s$3@dont-email.me> <vtivmo$19aqd$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtkc4l$2h48g$3@dont-email.me> <vtkdnm$2iqu5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtkkge$2si58$2@dont-email.me> <vtl56j$3aajg$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtlu0a$3vgp0$1@dont-email.me> <vtm04f$2a90$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtm9q8$aut7$1@dont-email.me> <vtmah8$2a90$2@dont-email.me>
	<vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me>
	<c2ad5086dba36124c070173c3e3252967df2fab9@i2pn2.org>
	<vu8g3q$v0qa$1@dont-email.me> <vu8lse$vn9b$1@dont-email.me>
	<vu8og4$13jl5$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:25:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1531528"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:51:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 4/22/2025 1:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 18:28 schreef olcott:
>>> On 4/22/2025 7:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:44:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>>>>> You continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y) {return x
>>>>> + y; }
>>>>> returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly understand how these
>>>>> things fundamentally work.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on the direct
>>>>> execution of DD when you are not telling it one damn thing about
>>>>> this direct execution.
>>>> What else is it missing that the processor uses to execute it?
>>>>
>>> libx86emu <is> a correct x86 processor and does emulate its inputs
>>> correctly.
>> 
>> The key thing here is that Olcott consistently does not understand that
>> HHH is given a finite string input that according to the semantics of
>> the x86 language specifies a halting program,
> 
> That is stupidly incorrect.
No, DD halts (when executed directly). HHH is not a halt decider, not even
for DD only.

> People here stupidly assume that the outputs are not required to
> correspond to the inputs.
But the direct execution of DD is computable from its description.

-- 
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.