Sujet : Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs
De : rjh (at) *nospam* cpax.org.uk (Richard Heathfield)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 29. Apr 2025, 07:33:10
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Fix this later
Message-ID : <vuprr6$15sqo$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 29/04/2025 02:28, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/28/25 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/28/2025 10:18 AM, dbush wrote:
On 4/28/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:
<snip>
The assumption that an H exists that meets the below requirements is false, as shown by Linz and others:
>
>
I have just proved that those requirements are stupidly wrong
IT IS UTTERLY MORONIC OR DECEITFUL TO DISAGREE WITH THE X86 LANGUAGE
>
No, all you have proved is that you are a stupid liar.
You CLAIM a lot of things, but haven't actually proven anything you have claimeed.
Fortunately he doesn't always have to, as it has sometimes already been proved.
For example, he has recently claimed that incomputable functions exist - "Computing the actual behavior the direct execution of any input is ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE." - and so he at least accepts Turing's conclusion, even if he doesn't like how Turing got there.
-- Richard HeathfieldEmail: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999Sig line 4 vacant - apply within