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: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using
 Finite String Transformations
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:14:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <vtp32o$2vb5o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vtivmo$19aqd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtkc4l$2h48g$3@dont-email.me> <vtkdnm$2iqu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtkkge$2si58$2@dont-email.me> <vtl56j$3aajg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtlu0a$3vgp0$1@dont-email.me> <vtm04f$2a90$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtm9q8$aut7$1@dont-email.me> <vtmah8$2a90$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me> <vtmh1n$2a90$3@dont-email.me>
 <vto4vh$23i07$1@dont-email.me> <vto7qu$267in$1@dont-email.me>
 <k%RLP.1232047$Xb1.539402@fx05.ams4> <vtorpb$2uac$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 22:14:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3540f0fe01c616207e7720cab7319ffa";
	logging-data="3124408"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mub0YVYKY5JX4BPBwpKFB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WOPe5aOYbnvUh04SVDmvgRcla3g=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250416-4, 4/16/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vtorpb$2uac$1@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 2996

On 4/16/2025 1:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:29:18 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 
>>> The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be
>>> constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
> 
>> Aren't you kind of putting the cart before the horse with such an
>> assertion?  Maybe the prior art you are basing that assertion on is wrong?
> 
> You're speaking from ignorance of mathematics.  The halting problem has
> been unequivocally proven.  It is a simple theorem, only slightly more
> complicated than 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> We're not talking about "prior art", or anything like that.  We're
> talking rigorous mathematics.  We're talking about absolute truth,
> something that Peter Olcott does not understand.  You don't need to join
> him.
> 
>> /Flibble
> 

Moronically stupid "rigorous mathematics" that is far
too stupid to know that unless the finite string input
input is transformed by finite string transformation
operations into outputs that you are doing the computer
science stupidly incorrectly.

All of logic, reasoning and computation boils down to
finite string transformations on inputs deriving outputs.

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