Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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: References: <852f89c9196e0261b8156050fea4572fe886933f@i2pn2.org> <63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org> 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: 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