Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 3/25/2025 9:45 AM, dbush wrote:But a description of a turing machine can be, for example in the form of source code or a binary. And a turing machine by definition *always* behaves the same for a given input when executing directly.On 3/24/2025 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:It is impossible for an actual Turing machine toOn 3/24/2025 10:12 PM, dbush wrote:>On 3/24/2025 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:>On 3/24/2025 8:46 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>On 2025-03-24 19:33, olcott wrote:>On 3/24/2025 7:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:>>In the post you were responding to I pointed out that computable functions are mathematical objects.>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
Computable functions implemented using models of computation
would seem to be more concrete than pure math functions.
Those are called computations or algorithms, not computable functions.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
Is another way to look at computable functions implemented
by some concrete model of computation.
>
And not all mathematical functions are computable, such as the halting function.
>>The halting problems asks whether there *is* an algorithm which can compute the halting function, but the halting function itself is a purely mathematical object which exists prior to, and independent of, any such algorithm (if one existed).>
>
None-the-less it only has specific elements of its domain
as its entire basis. For Turing machines this always means
a finite string that (for example) encodes a specific
sequence of moves.
False. *All* turing machine are the domain of the halting function, and the existence of UTMs show that all turning machines can be described by a finite string.
>
You just aren't paying enough attention. Turing machines
are never in the domain of any computable function.
<snip>
>
False. The mathematical function that counts the number of instructions in a turing machine is computable.
>
be input to any other TM.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.