Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:43:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <81f9bf385102f704558c561a4ce587f1b2362d1e@i2pn2.org>
References: <TuuNP.2706011$nb1.2053729@fx01.ams4>
 <87cyd5182l.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me>
 <vugddv$b21g$2@dont-email.me> <vui4uf$20dpc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuivtb$2lf64$3@dont-email.me> <vungtl$2v2kr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuoaac$3jn5n$5@dont-email.me> <vuq81v$1hjka$1@dont-email.me>
 <vutefq$gmbi$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 23:56:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2600536"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vutefq$gmbi$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3936
Lines: 78

On 4/30/25 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/29/2025 5:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-28 16:27:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/28/2025 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-26 15:59:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/26/2025 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-04-25 16:31:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-24 15:11:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2025 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-21 23:52:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Computer Science Professor Eric Hehner PhD
>>>>>>>>>>> and I all seem to agree that the same view
>>>>>>>>>>> that Flibble has is the correct view.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Others can see that their justification is defective and 
>>>>>>>>>> contradicted
>>>>>>>>>> by a good proof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some people claim that the unsolvability of the halting 
>>>>>>>>>> problem is
>>>>>>>>>> unproven but nobody has solved the problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the last 22 years I have only been refuting the
>>>>>>>>> conventional Halting Problem proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trying to refute. You have not shown any defect in that proof of 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> theorem. There are other proofs that you don't even try to refute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. You have simply not been paying enough attention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once we understand that Turing computable functions are only
>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turing allowed Turing machines to do whatever they can do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Strawman deception error of changing the subject away
>>>>> from computable functions.
>>>>
>>>> Attempt to deceive by a false claim. The term "computable function" is
>>>> defined in terms of Turing machines so Turing machines are on topic.
>>>
>>> Since there is no universally agreed upon definition
>>> of the Turing Machine language it is impossible to
>>> provide the 100% concrete details in this Turing
>>> Machine language.
>>
>> Irrelevant. There is sufficient agreement what Turing machines are.
> 
> Turing machine computable functions must apply
> finite string transformation rues to inputs
> to derive outputs.
> 
> This is not a function that computes the sum(3,2):
> int sum(int x, int y) { return 5; }

Sure it is.

or are you saying 3+2 isnt 5.

Note, Computation are only evaluated by theire input to output mapping.

Now, your sum is incorrect for any input pair that doesn't add up to 5, 
but is correct for inputs that do.

> 
>> And that agreement does not restrict what Turing machines are allowed
>> to do, only what they can do.
>>
> 
>