Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Turing computable function for sum of two integers
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 12:36:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <vutn3d$nvbg$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vtbe3g$1vs00$1@dont-email.me>
 <852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org>
 <vth52t$3in23$9@dont-email.me> <vth557$3a127$7@dont-email.me>
 <vth8lr$3n2du$2@dont-email.me>
 <a8ab995b650b894cbfb635478f7406c4eee4d187@i2pn2.org>
 <vthqtc$5g2e$2@dont-email.me>
 <63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org>
 <vtit6a$15e5s$3@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>
 <vtopqv$2meit$1@dont-email.me> <vung5v$2uf19$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuo87d$3jn5n$3@dont-email.me> <vuo8oq$3dd6e$3@dont-email.me>
 <vuomfn$1pcj$4@dont-email.me> <vuq7dp$1gtva$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:36:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="513b7ff7137ccbc73f1df5ad6a929a2f";
	logging-data="785776"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/p1qx7BA7xlQ+hW5BAKLq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Su2H+8ZSPOblxmXb3vujP4/80x0=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250430-10, 4/30/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vuq7dp$1gtva$2@dont-email.me>

On 4/29/2025 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-04-28 19:55:35 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 4/28/2025 11:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2025 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-04-16 17:36:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/16/2025 7:29 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/04/2025 12:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> sum(3,2) IS NOT THE SAME AS sum(5,2).
>>>>>>>> IT IS EITHER STUPID OR DISHONEST FOR YOU TO TRY TO
>>>>>>>> GET AWAY FOR CLAIMING THIS USING THE STRAW DECEPTION
>>>>>>>> INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT PARAPHRASE OF MY WORDS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether sum(3,2) is or is not the same as sum(5,2) is not the 
>>>>>>> question. The question is whether a universal termination 
>>>>>>> analyser can be constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has been rigorously proved. If you want to overturn the 
>>>>>>> proof you've got your work cut out to persuade anyone to listen, 
>>>>>>> not least because anyone who tries to enter into a dialogue with 
>>>>>>> you is met with contempt and scorn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proof stands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>> *corresponding output to the input*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing
>>>>>> else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever
>>>>>> mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT.
>>>>>
>>>>> A halt decider is is not allowed to compute "whatever" mapping. It is
>>>>> required to compute one specific mapping: to "no" if the computation
>>>>> described by the input can be continesd forever without halting, to
>>>>> "no" otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It must do this by applying the finite string transformation
>>>> rules specified by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD).
>>>>
>>>> This DOES NOT DERIVE THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD.
>>>> It DOES DERIVE DD EMULATED BY HHH AND ALSO DERIVES THE RECURSIVE
>>>> EMULATION OF HHH EMULATING ITSELF EMULATING DD.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, no H exists that satisfies the following requirements,
>>
>> BECAUSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG AND NO ONE NOTICED.
>> BECAUSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG AND NO ONE NOTICED.
>> BECAUSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG AND NO ONE NOTICED.
>> BECAUSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG AND NO ONE NOTICED.
>> BECAUSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WRONG AND NO ONE NOTICED.
> 
> You have not proven that the requirements are wrong in any sense.
> 

int sum(int x, int y) { return 5; }
Is NOT a Turing Computable function for the sum of two integers.

int sum(int x, int y) { x + y; }
Is a Turing Computable function for the sum of two integers.

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