Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Correcting the definition of the halting problem --- Computable
 functions
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 07:20:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2f8907cec7ba650ed88b660b2df553102644783d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vrc4nu$2m36k$5@dont-email.me>
 <vrkc2m$24ft6$1@dont-email.me> <vrkdij$25f9f$3@dont-email.me>
 <vrlt36$3haib$1@dont-email.me> <vrn237$im1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrn67b$md49$1@dont-email.me>
 <cb974817db8e02049daa5604d725300154e33ad1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrps14$35a4m$2@dont-email.me>
 <eab11e8806c669d296bff986870bdc6abdbb2fef@i2pn2.org>
 <vrqicu$3s258$1@dont-email.me>
 <30c2beae6c191f2502e93972a69c85ff227bfd03@i2pn2.org>
 <vrrs79$11a56$7@dont-email.me> <vrrsta$tdm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrs264$1a43i$1@dont-email.me> <vrs54q$1d1o2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrse90$1jr8u$1@dont-email.me> <vrsk13$1q39o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrsn62$1rblu$2@dont-email.me> <vrsnhu$1q39o$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrsodl$1rblu$3@dont-email.me> <vrsogj$1q39o$3@dont-email.me>
 <vrsqlq$1rblu$4@dont-email.me> <vrsrmr$1q39o$4@dont-email.me>
 <vrt14i$264jb$1@dont-email.me> <vrt1tu$257a2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrt357$264jb$2@dont-email.me> <vrt6va$22073$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrt7u2$2au0q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:20:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1677619"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vrt7u2$2au0q$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5497
Lines: 97

On 3/24/25 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.
> <snip>

Sure they are, you seem to try to conviently forget about the ability to 
represent "abstract" or "Mathenatical" constructs with language.

And the finite string input to a Turing Machine/Computable Function is 
to be interpreted by the language defined by that machine.

OR, you need to define that the addition of two natural numbers isn't a 
computable funcition, as a "number" isn't in the domain of a computable 
function, as it isn't a finite string, just something that can be 
represented (in various ways) as one.

> 
>>>
>>> The math halting function is free to "abstract away" key
>>> details that change everything. That is why I have never
>>> been talking about the pure math and have always been
>>> referring to its implementation in a model of computation.
>>>
>>
>> There are no details abstracted away.  The halting function is simply 
>> uncomputable.
>>
> 
> When the measure of the behavior specified by a
> finite string input DD is when correctly emulated
> by HHH then DD can't reach its own final halt state
> then not-halting is decidable.

But that isn't the measure of the behavior specified by the finite 
string to a Halt Decider.

All you are doing is admitting to your strawman.

Sorry, you are just showing that you are so stupid that you openly admit 
it without realizing it.

> 
>>> A halt decider cannot exist 
>>
>> So again, you explicitly agree with the Linz proof and all other 
>> proofs of the halting function.
>>
>>> because the halting problem is defined incorrectly 
>>
>> There's nothing incorrect about wanting something that would solve the 
>> Goldbach conjecture and make unknowable truths knowable.  Your 
>> alternate definition won't provide that.
>>
>> There's no requirement that a function be computable.
> 
>