Re: Computable Functions --- OUTPUTS MUST CORRESPOND TO INPUTS

Am Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:51:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/22/2025 1:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 22.apr.2025 om 18:28 schreef olcott:

On 4/22/2025 7:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:44:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:

You continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y) {return x
+ y; }
returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly understand how these
things fundamentally work.
>
It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on the direct
execution of DD when you are not telling it one damn thing about
this direct execution.

What else is it missing that the processor uses to execute it?
>

libx86emu <is> a correct x86 processor and does emulate its inputs
correctly.

 
The key thing here is that Olcott consistently does not understand that
HHH is given a finite string input that according to the semantics of
the x86 language specifies a halting program,

 
That is stupidly incorrect.

No, DD halts (when executed directly). HHH is not a halt decider, not even
for DD only.

People here stupidly assume that the outputs are not required to
correspond to the inputs.

But the direct execution of DD is computable from its description.

--
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.