Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:46:39 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org> <4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org> <65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 20:46:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="67af223ffcc413f8c29b457017b45374"; logging-data="3585230"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18b/uRiObe8extwG+UTninG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:D+1KwU9q6Cdqj1DdLl6giNCndh4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4263 On 4/28/2025 2:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 4/28/2025 11:38 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 28/04/2025 16:01, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/28/2025 2:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 28/04/2025 07:46, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So we agree that no algorithm exists that can determine for all >>>>> possible inputs whether the input specifies a program that >>>>> (according to the semantics of the machine language) halts when >>>>> directly executed. >>>>> Correct? >>>> >>>> Correct. We can, however, construct such an algorithm just as long >>>> as we can ignore any input we don't like the look of. >>>> >>> >>> The behavior of the direct execution of DD cannot be derived >>> by applying the finite string transformation rules specified >>> by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD). This proves that >>> this is the wrong behavior to measure. >>> >>> It is the behavior THAT IS derived by applying the finite >>> string transformation rules specified by the x86 language >>> to the input to HHH(DD) proves that THE EMULATED DD NEVER HALTS. >> >> The x86 language is neither here nor there. > > Computable functions are the formalized analogue > of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense > that a function is computable if there exists an > algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. > *given an input of the function domain it* > *can return the corresponding output* > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > > *Outputs must correspond to inputs* > > *This stipulates how outputs must be derived* > Every Turing Machine computable function is > only allowed to derive outputs by applying > finite string transformation rules to its inputs. > And no turing machine exists that can derive the following mapping (i.e. the mapping is not a computable function), as proven by Linz and others: Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as with input Y: A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping: (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly