Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Correcting the definition of the halting problem --- Computable functions Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:53:31 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 58 Message-ID: References: <30c2beae6c191f2502e93972a69c85ff227bfd03@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:53:32 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9741c665c88d9215381b06ce738934cb"; logging-data="3688770"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/er+aMpE/P4wL8PfCMBjT8" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:4uM8DKwrQyVVpg0uWXiHvdp+hfA= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250324-4, 3/24/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4259 On 3/25/2025 9:45 AM, dbush wrote: > On 3/24/2025 11:29 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/24/2025 10:12 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 3/24/2025 10:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/24/2025 8:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2025-03-24 19:33, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/24/2025 7:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> In the post you were responding to I pointed out that computable >>>>>>> functions are mathematical objects. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>> >>>>>> Computable functions implemented using models of computation >>>>>> would seem to be more concrete than pure math functions. >>>>> >>>>> Those are called computations or algorithms, not computable functions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function >>>> Is another way to look at computable functions implemented >>>> by some concrete model of computation. >>>> >>> >>> And not all mathematical functions are computable, such as the >>> halting function. >>> >>>>> The halting problems asks whether there *is* an algorithm which can >>>>> compute the halting function, but the halting function itself is a >>>>> purely mathematical object which exists prior to, and independent >>>>> of, any such algorithm (if one existed). >>>>> >>>> >>>> None-the-less it only has specific elements of its domain >>>> as its entire basis. For Turing machines this always means >>>> a finite string that (for example) encodes a specific >>>> sequence of moves. >>> >>> False.  *All* turing machine are the domain of the halting function, >>> and the existence of UTMs show that all turning machines can be >>> described by a finite string. >>> >> >> You just aren't paying enough attention. Turing machines >> are never in the domain of any computable function. >> >> > > False.  The mathematical function that counts the number of instructions > in a turing machine is computable. > It is impossible for an actual Turing machine to be input to any other TM. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer