Sujet : Re: Turing computable functions
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 26. Mar 2025, 10:59:41
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <e14a71c932370dbfaa384f8ca8a595a4afe46ff5@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:42:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 3/25/2025 4:02 PM, dbush wrote:
On 3/25/2025 4:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/25/2025 3:05 PM, dbush wrote:
On 3/25/2025 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/25/2025 2:32 PM, dbush wrote:
On 3/25/2025 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
cannot possibly report on the behavior of any directly executing
process. No Turing machine can every do this. This has always been
beyond what any Turing machine can ever do.
>
Strawman: reporting on an executing process is not a requirement.
>
YOU JUST SAID THAT IT WAS YOU KEEP MINDLESSLY REPEATING THAT IT IS
On 3/25/2025 2:32 PM, dbush wrote:
> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed
> directly
>
I never said it had to actually watch an executing process, only
report what would happen if it did run.
>
*It has been conclusively proven as a verified*
*fact many hundreds of times over several years*
That the behavior that the finite string input specifies
Is
NOT ALWAYS
Should be.
the behavior of directly executing the described Turing machine.
Then the simulator is broken.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
Turing computable functions
Re: Turing computable functions