Re: Turing computable functions

On 3/27/25 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 2:52 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.mrt.2025 om 18:41 schreef olcott:

On 3/27/2025 5:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.mrt.2025 om 17:25 schreef olcott:

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.

>

If an analyser has a pathological relation with this input, it is wrong to choose this analyser for this input. In particular when there are analysers that do not have this relationship with this input.

>
It is the input that specifies the pathological relationship.
This means that you are saying that the analyzer should reject
this input.

>
>
Yes, reject because it cannot analyse correctly.

 Oh so you disagree with the semantics of the x86 language?
 

No, it is YOU who does, as you think the x86 language somewhere has a definition that the call to some address starts an x86 level emulator.
It has no such thing, a call instruction only transfers execution to the subroutine called.
Even at a meta-logic level of emulation, a call to an emulator only become equivalent to calling the program emulated if the emulator is actually a COMPLETE and correct emulator, no aborting allowed.
Sorry, you are just proving that all your logic is based on FRAUD and lies.