Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Computable_Functions_---_finite_string_transformati?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?on_rules_---_0_=E2=89=A01?=
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 07:47:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <36bfe2341762a98b87a12eddb071ae7cf1db53f6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me>
 <bf0ee557f7c0eba386944a4551e607895c620d44@i2pn2.org>
 <vue9im$2d7t8$5@dont-email.me>
 <09bba11868dafecb6800ba8aec152304fec97553@i2pn2.org>
 <vuej7d$2md4c$1@dont-email.me>
 <51a4be0ebc0ddc76954fd2e5ec1c5951b5f306e3@i2pn2.org>
 <vug1gc$116u$1@dont-email.me>
 <6bd35d1c5fb0d281a29dc8e56458f2b83f63d878@i2pn2.org>
 <vugl27$it5g$2@dont-email.me> <vui73e$217h6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuj0rf$2lf64$5@dont-email.me> <vukunp$i1sb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vulsm7$1bf1j$6@dont-email.me> <vungbu$2ujct$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuo99r$3jn5n$4@dont-email.me> <vuo9aq$3dd6e$4@dont-email.me>
 <vuohjk$3td7u$2@dont-email.me> <vuohst$3dd6e$6@dont-email.me>
 <vuojet$3td7u$6@dont-email.me> <vuojqg$3dd6e$11@dont-email.me>
 <vuomc0$1pcj$3@dont-email.me> <vuomsu$3dd6e$13@dont-email.me>
 <vuonb6$2gnd$2@dont-email.me> <vuoo47$2tu0$5@dont-email.me>
 <vuot4h$7n8s$2@dont-email.me>
 <434e3c1e34eb9a181339b51c95a89de38e612d4d@i2pn2.org>
 <vuusvd$1s83v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 11:47:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2669065"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vuusvd$1s83v$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/1/25 12:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/29/2025 5:06 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:49:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 4/28/2025 3:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 28.apr.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 4/28/2025 3:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>
>>>>>> So when you hypothesize changing the code of the function HHH, you're
>>>>>> hypothesizing changing the input algorithm DD.
>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>> Of the freaking infinite set of every damn HHH/DD pair that can
>>>>> possibly exist where DD is emulated by HHH according to the finite
>>>>> string transformation rules of the x86 language NOT A DAMN ONE OF THE
>>>>> EMULATED DD HALTS.
>>>> Because they all were prevented to halt by HHH, which aborts the
>>>> simulation prematurely.
>>> Factually incorrect and apparently way over your head.
>> Does HHH not abort?
>>
> 
> The abort is the effect, not the cause.
> The cause is that DD specifies recursive
> emulation.
> 
> 

But only finitely recursive emulation, because the HHH that DD calls 
will abort its emulation and return.

You don't seem to understand that order you need to do your steps, and 
what are the actual definitions.

Decider to be made broken must be determined first.

Then the input DD will be formed that uses just that one decider.

THAT decider will get the wrong answer.

If you hypothosize a different decider being given this input, the input 
doesn't change, but stlll calls the original decider.

IF you try to hypothosize about building DD from a different decider, 
that is a diffferent input.