Re: Computable Functions --- OUTPUTS MUST CORRESPOND TO INPUTS

On 4/23/2025 6:25 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:51:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/22/2025 1:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 22.apr.2025 om 18:28 schreef olcott:

On 4/22/2025 7:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:44:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:

 

You continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y) {return x
+ y; }
returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly understand how these
things fundamentally work.
>
It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on the direct
execution of DD when you are not telling it one damn thing about
this direct execution.

What else is it missing that the processor uses to execute it?
>

libx86emu <is> a correct x86 processor and does emulate its inputs
correctly.

>
The key thing here is that Olcott consistently does not understand that
HHH is given a finite string input that according to the semantics of
the x86 language specifies a halting program,

>
That is stupidly incorrect.

No, DD halts (when executed directly). HHH is not a halt decider, not even
for DD only.
 

People here stupidly assume that the outputs are not required to
correspond to the inputs.

But the direct execution of DD is computable from its description.
 

Not as an input to HHH.
When HHH computes halting for DD is is only allowed
to apply the finite string transformations specified
by the x86 language to the machine code of DD.
Because DD DOES CALL ITS OWN EMULATOR this does require
the behavior measured is DD emulating by HHH including
HHH emulating itself emulating DDD.
Anyone that disagrees merely proves their own lack
of understanding that computable functions are only
allowed to apply finite string transformations to inputs.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer