Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: A computable function that reports on the behavior of its actual
 self is not allowed
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 20:30:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1ubba$v37v$13@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1r566$2uo21$1@dont-email.me> <v1smrp$3clsp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1t563$3g3o3$2@dont-email.me> <v1u201$3mvsa$2@dont-email.me>
 <v1u5so$3nqc3$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 00:30:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1019135"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v1u5so$3nqc3$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3094
Lines: 48

On 5/13/24 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2024 4:50 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 13/05/24 15:39, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2024 4:34 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 12.mei.2024 om 21:27 schreef olcott:
>>>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>>>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>>>>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>>>>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
>>>>> corresponding output. 
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>
>>>>> A computable function that reports on the behavior of its actual
>>>>> self (or reports on the behavior of its caller) is not allowed.
>>>>
>>>> So, olcott uses his authority to create a new problem. Why would 
>>>> anybody be interested in such limitation?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The definition of computable function is an axiomatic basis
>>> not any mere authority.
>>>
>> There's no axiom that says computable functions aren't allowed to have 
>> themselves as input. 
> 
> If you are 100% precise with the meaning of your words you
> already know that no executed embedded_H can possibly report
> on its own behavior because no TM can take another TM as input.

Which shows tha that your just totally don't understand what you are 
talking about.

By your reasoning, NO decider can be asked about ANY behavior of a 
Turing Machine, because we can't give it on.
> 
> If you are very sloppy here you will think that an executing
> Turing Machine is exactly the same thing as a finite string
> Turing machine description.

They aren't "The same thing" but it can be the needed representation of it.

> 
> Rebuttals that are sloppy with the meaning of words allow
> incorrect rebuttals to seem plausible to people that are
> hardly paying attention.
> 

Says the man that doesn't know the meaning of most the words he uses.