Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing computable functions
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:37:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vs4ngf$1c1ja$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vruvsn$3tamc$3@dont-email.me> <vs0b8d$19qb8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs19qe$2346o$2@dont-email.me> <vs39ht$1ogp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs42l4$mmcb$1@dont-email.me> <vs4aa0$101mm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:37:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c3826c8f357adb38be8b9ef5898c2054";
	logging-data="1443434"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18aXqKLFOL/GpEopQC+huPE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OOlPWyYw+fwPSH9kXrtDl9vSsgI=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250327-8, 3/27/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vs4aa0$101mm$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2797

On 3/27/2025 2:52 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 27.mrt.2025 om 18:41 schreef olcott:
>> On 3/27/2025 5:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 26.mrt.2025 om 17:25 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 3/26/2025 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-03-25 19:24:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cannot possibly derive any outputs not computed from
>>>>>> their inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Turing machine halt decider cannot possibly report
>>>>>> on the behavior of any directly executing process.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can if that report is a computable function of their inputs.
>>>>> For example, whether the direct execution of another Turing machine
>>>>> is longer than 2 steps is Turing computable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When an input to a simulating termination analyzer
>>>> defines a pathological relationship to its simulating
>>>> termination analyzer this changes the behavior of this
>>>> input relative to its direct execution.
>>
>>> If an analyser has a pathological relation with this input, it is 
>>> wrong to choose this analyser for this input. In particular when 
>>> there are analysers that do not have this relationship with this input.
>>
>> It is the input that specifies the pathological relationship.
>> This means that you are saying that the analyzer should reject
>> this input.
> 
> 
> Yes, reject because it cannot analyse correctly.

Oh so you disagree with the semantics of the x86 language?

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