Re: Turing computable functions

On 3/26/25 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2025 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-25 19:24:07 +0000, olcott said:
>

Cannot possibly derive any outputs not computed from
their inputs.
>
A Turing machine halt decider cannot possibly report
on the behavior of any directly executing process.

>
It can if that report is a computable function of their inputs.
For example, whether the direct execution of another Turing machine
is longer than 2 steps is Turing computable.
>

 When an input to a simulating termination analyzer
defines a pathological relationship to its simulating
termination analyzer this changes the behavior of this
input relative to its direct execution.

No it doesn't. Where do you get that from, since the DEFINITION of the behavior is that of the direct execution of the program it represents.

 Simulating termination analyzers only report on the
behavior that their input specifies.

WHich *IS* the behavior of the direct execution of the program the input specified.

 When an input to a simulating termination analyzer
defines a pathological relationship to its simulating
termination analyzer this changes the behavior of this
input relative to its direct execution.

No, it doesn't
Source for your claim?
Or are you just going to by defautl admit your source is your own fraudulent ideas.

 Simulating termination analyzers only report on the
behavior that their input specifies.

Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program the input represents.
PERIOD.

 HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS BEFORE
YOU NOTICE THAT I SAID IT AT LEAST ONCE?
 

Your problem is that you statements are just lies, which people ignore and point you to the correct meaning of the words.
Of course, it seems you are just too stupid to see that because you have brainwashed yourself into believing your lies over the defined truth.