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: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 21:28:53 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9c3b57c69994b0477f8ac216ce6553c5b541b8f1@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vua9oi$2lub6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me> <vufi61$3k099$1@dont-email.me>
 <vugddv$b21g$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org>
 <vugvr3$pke9$8@dont-email.me>
 <4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj18i$2lf64$6@dont-email.me>
 <f0d3f2e87d9a4e0b0f445f60a33d529f41a4fcf7@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj55m$2lf64$10@dont-email.me> <vuj8h3$2uahf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vujfuu$35hcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org>
 <vujlj0$3a526$1@dont-email.me> <vujln7$32om9$8@dont-email.me>
 <vujmmm$3a526$2@dont-email.me> <vujmrj$32om9$9@dont-email.me>
 <vujtcb$3gsgr$1@dont-email.me> <vuju44$3hnda$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuk47o$3qkbb$1@dont-email.me> <vuk6b6$3l184$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuls34$1bf1j$4@dont-email.me> <vun87k$2m24h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vunb06$2fjjl$5@dont-email.me> <vuo57j$3h5l9$2@dont-email.me>
 <vuo68a$3dd6e$1@dont-email.me> <vuo782$3jn5n$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:07:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2331913"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vuo782$3jn5n$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3290
Lines: 36

On 4/28/25 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2025 10:18 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/28/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2025 2:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 28/04/2025 07:46, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> So we agree that no algorithm exists that can determine for all 
>>>>> possible inputs whether the input specifies a program that 
>>>>> (according to the semantics of the machine language) halts when 
>>>>> directly executed.
>>>>> Correct?
>>>>
>>>> Correct. We can, however, construct such an algorithm just as long 
>>>> as we can ignore any input we don't like the look of.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The behavior of the direct execution of DD cannot be derived
>>> by applying the finite string transformation rules specified
>>> by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD). This proves that
>>
>> The assumption that an H exists that meets the below requirements is 
>> false, as shown by Linz and others:
>>
> 
> I have just proved that those requirements are stupidly wrong
> IT IS UTTERLY MORONIC OR DECEITFUL TO DISAGREE WITH THE X86 LANGUAGE
> 

No, all you have proved is that you are a stupid liar.

You CLAIM a lot of things, but haven't actually proven anything you have 
claimeed.

Sorry, the only thing that you have actually proved is that you are just 
an ignorant pathological liar.