Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 22:07:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b1f10444ab97ed75ce4a23fd3fb534d2762f8c71@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vufi61$3k099$1@dont-email.me> <vugddv$b21g$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org>
 <vugvr3$pke9$8@dont-email.me>
 <4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj18i$2lf64$6@dont-email.me>
 <f0d3f2e87d9a4e0b0f445f60a33d529f41a4fcf7@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj55m$2lf64$10@dont-email.me> <vuj8h3$2uahf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vujfuu$35hcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org>
 <vujlj0$3a526$1@dont-email.me> <vujln7$32om9$8@dont-email.me>
 <vujmmm$3a526$2@dont-email.me> <vujmrj$32om9$9@dont-email.me>
 <vujtcb$3gsgr$1@dont-email.me> <vuju44$3hnda$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuk47o$3qkbb$1@dont-email.me> <vuk6b6$3l184$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuls34$1bf1j$4@dont-email.me> <vun87k$2m24h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vunb06$2fjjl$5@dont-email.me> <vuo57j$3h5l9$2@dont-email.me>
 <vuo68a$3dd6e$1@dont-email.me> <vuo782$3jn5n$2@dont-email.me>
 <vuo7jc$3dd6e$2@dont-email.me> <vuoatj$3jn5n$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:07:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2331913"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vuoatj$3jn5n$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4324
Lines: 62

On 4/28/25 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2025 10:41 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/28/2025 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2025 10:18 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2025 2:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/04/2025 07:46, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> The assumption that an H exists that meets the below requirements is 
>>>> false, as shown by Linz and others:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have just proved that those requirements are stupidly wrong
>>
>> Category error.  The mapping exists 
> 
> 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

No, that is not a "analogue".

> 
> There is a mapping from the input to HHH(DD) by applying
> the finite string transformation rules specified by the
> x86 language to this DD input that derives:
> *no correctly emulated DD ever reaches its final halt state*

No, since HHH(DD) returns 0, per your stipulations, the transformation 
of the full code of the input reaches a final state.

HHH, because it doesn't follow those rules, just gives up too soon, and 
you prove that you are just an ignorant pathologocial liar.

> 
> How long do you think that you can get away with
> disagreeing with the x86 language before you begin
> to look very stupid?
> 

You are the one disregaring the x86 language, as you demonstrate by not 
answering the refutation shoing your error.