Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing computable functions
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 18:42:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <73d5b1f43192a5d64d58b0f4c08301c8b0a7fe78@i2pn2.org>
References: <vruvsn$3tamc$3@dont-email.me> <vrv0d4$3hle3$10@dont-email.me>
 <vrv18e$3tamc$4@dont-email.me> <vrv2aa$3hle3$11@dont-email.me>
 <vrv4up$3t3k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:32:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1762229"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vrv4up$3t3k$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4059
Lines: 79

On 3/25/25 4:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/25/2025 3:05 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/25/2025 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2025 2:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2025 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Cannot possibly derive any outputs not computed from
>>>>> their inputs.
>>>>
>>>> Correct, algorithms can only compute computable mathematical function.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A Turing machine halt decider 
>>>>
>>>> Does not exist because the required mapping is not computable:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>
>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes 
>>>> the following mapping:
>>>>
>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>>>> directly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> cannot possibly report
>>>>> on the behavior of any directly executing process.
>>>>> No Turing machine can every do this. This has always
>>>>> been beyond what any Turing machine can ever do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Strawman: reporting on an executing process is not a requirement. 
>>>
>>> YOU JUST SAID THAT IT WAS
>>> YOU KEEP MINDLESSLY REPEATING THAT IT IS
>>>
>>> On 3/25/2025 2:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>  > (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I never said it had to actually watch an executing process, only 
>> report what would happen if it did run.
>>
> 
> *It has been conclusively proven as a verified*
> *fact many hundreds of times over several years*
> That the behavior that the finite string input specifies
> is not perfect proxy for the behavior of the underlying
> directly executed machine.
> 

How?

Show the actual proof, one that hasn't be refuted without you actually 
showing an error in the refutation.

DO you mean your FRAUD where you claim that the correct emulation by the 
x86 language is something other than that emulation, which *ALWAYS* 
means executing the FULL sequence of instructions that the CPU would run 
when dirrectly executing it (and thus can not differ from that) and 
doesn't allow the replacement of a call instruction with some argument 
about what the function called should be doing.

or, do you mean your FRAUD where your emulator fails to be the agreed 
upon "pure function" of its input, since its input is only the code of 
the C function provide, and not the functions it calls?

or, do you mean your FRAUD where you claim that a vast number of 
DIFFERENT inputs are all the "same", different because the input 
"includes" the memory of the function called, but that difference is 
hidden by not being explicit about what the input is to get around your 
previous fraud.

All you have "conclusively proved" is that you are just an ignorant 
pathological liar that doesn't understand what he is talking about, and 
doesn't care about how stupid he actually is.