Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Correcting the definition of the halting problem --- Computable
 functions
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 07:20:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8f76f41aa49d1945a39219e75a5b2cbe1a635e70@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vrbtiq$2j07c$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrc3ud$2p461$1@dont-email.me> <vrc4nu$2m36k$5@dont-email.me>
 <vrkc2m$24ft6$1@dont-email.me> <vrkdij$25f9f$3@dont-email.me>
 <vrlt36$3haib$1@dont-email.me> <vrn237$im1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrn67b$md49$1@dont-email.me>
 <cb974817db8e02049daa5604d725300154e33ad1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrps14$35a4m$2@dont-email.me>
 <eab11e8806c669d296bff986870bdc6abdbb2fef@i2pn2.org>
 <vrqicu$3s258$1@dont-email.me>
 <30c2beae6c191f2502e93972a69c85ff227bfd03@i2pn2.org>
 <vrrs79$11a56$7@dont-email.me> <vrrsta$tdm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrs264$1a43i$1@dont-email.me> <vrs54q$1d1o2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrse90$1jr8u$1@dont-email.me> <vrsk13$1q39o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrsn62$1rblu$2@dont-email.me> <vrsnhu$1q39o$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrsodl$1rblu$3@dont-email.me> <vrsogj$1q39o$3@dont-email.me>
 <vrsqlq$1rblu$4@dont-email.me> <vrsrmr$1q39o$4@dont-email.me>
 <vrt14i$264jb$1@dont-email.me> <vrt1tu$257a2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrt357$264jb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:20:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1677619"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vrt357$264jb$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 3/24/25 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/24/2025 8:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2025-03-24 19:33, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2025 7:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> In the post you were responding to I pointed out that computable 
>>>> functions are mathematical objects.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>
>>> Computable functions implemented using models of computation
>>> would seem to be more concrete than pure math functions.
>>
>> Those are called computations or algorithms, not computable functions.
>>
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
> Is another way to look at computable functions implemented
> by some concrete model of computation.

And your HHH and EEE appartently aren't, as you have them look at memory 
that isn't part of the input.

Sorry, you are just proving that you are just a big fat liar that 
doesn't care about the meaning of the words he uses.

> 
>> The halting problems asks whether there *is* an algorithm which can 
>> compute the halting function, but the halting function itself is a 
>> purely mathematical object which exists prior to, and independent of, 
>> any such algorithm (if one existed).
>>
> 
> None-the-less it only has specific elements of its domain
> as its entire basis. For Turing machines this always means
> a finite string that (for example) encodes a specific
> sequence of moves.

And thus, that finite string can represent any Turing Machine (and its 
input), and so we can ask if that machine will halt?

> 
>>> For example pure math functions don't have any specific
>>> storage like a tape or machine registers.
>>
>> No they don't. Why would they? A mathematical function is simply a 
>> static mapping from elements of a domain to elements of a codomain.
>>
>>> This also would seem to mean that they would require
>>> some actual input.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The above copypasta doesn't address this.
>>>>
>>>> I pointed out that the domain of a computable function needn't be a 
>>>> string. The above copypasta doesn't address this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When implemented using an actual model of computation
>>> some concrete form or input seems required.
>>>
>>>> I pointed out that there is no bijection natural numbers and strings, 
>>>
>>> finite strings of decimal digits: [0123456789]
>>>
>>>> but rather a one-to-many relation. The above copypasta doesn't 
>>>> address this.
>>>
>>> "12579" would seem to have a bijective mapping to
>>> a single natural number.
>>
>> The natural number 12579 maps equally to the (decimal) string 
>> '012579', '0012579',... so there is no bijection.
>>
> 
> The bijection is then to decimal digits without leading zeroes to 
> Natural numbers.
> 
>>>>
>>>> I pointed out that the exact same sort of one-to-many relation 
>>>> exists between computations and strings. The above copypasta doesn't 
>>>> address this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I pointed out above that the finite string of x86
>>> machine code correctly emulated by EEE DOES
>>> NOT MAP TO THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS DIRECT EXECUTION.
>>
>> But I was not talking about EEE. I was talking about the halting 
>> function. All you seem to be claiming above is that whatever EEE 
>> computes, it isn't the halting function. Everyone already agrees to that.
>>
>> André
>>
> 
> The math halting function is free to "abstract away" key
> details that change everything. That is why I have never
> been talking about the pure math and have always been
> referring to its implementation in a model of computation.

NO it doesn't.

> 
> A halt decider cannot exist because the halting problem is
> defined incorrectly ignoring key details that change
> everything.

So you admit that you have just been lying for decades about finding one!

> 
> To unequivocally see these key details we examine x86 code
> such that every control flow instruction is implemented
> within a directed graph of 100% specific state transitions.

Right, and your DDD thus HALTS because HHH returns 0 to it, thus HHH is 
WRONG to do so.

Your problem is you don't look at the directed graph defined by that 
structure, but by one built by your inconsistant assumption that the HHH 
that DDD calls will be different then the HHH that is looking at it, 
even though both have identical code and are supposed to be pure function.

> 
> ---
> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

And idiots shoot at targets that don't exist, hurting innocent bystanders.