Re: Computable Functions --- finite string transformation rules

On 4/26/2025 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 3:45 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/26/2025 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/26/2025 3:23 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 14:46:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/26/2025 1:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:28 schreef olcott:

On 4/26/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 25.apr.2025 om 23:21 schreef olcott:

On 4/25/2025 8:56 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:03:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>

The program EE(){ HHH(EE); } also halts and cannot be simulated by
HHH.
>

HHH cannot possibly do this without violating the rules of the x86
language.

HHH already violates the rules of the x86 language by prematurely
aborting the halting program.

>
Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules of the x86 language yet no
one can point out which rules are violated

>
It has been pointed out many times. It is against the rules of the x86
language to abort a halting function.

>
You remains stupidly wrong about this because you refuse to show what
step of DD is not emulated by HHH according to the finite string
transformation rules specified by the x86 language.

>

All instructions after the abort are not emulated.
>

>
Still stupidly wrong.
>
*The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>

>
But not to what you think he agreed to:
>

 I don't give a rat's ass about other people's
opinions of what he agreed to.

Not opinion, but fact:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything
 > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
 > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me.

 Other people keep trying to dishonesty get
away with disagreeing with the finite string
transformations specified by the x86 language.
 

Which state that when DDD is actually run on an actual x86 processor that it will halt.

This seems to prove that these "other people"
are liars.
 Now that I just came up with the idea that all
Turing Machine computable functions must apply
finite string transformations to their inputs
to derive their outputs

Lying by misuse of terms.  A "computable function" is nothing more than a mathematical mapping for which algorithm exists to compute it.  It is *not* the algorithm.
And algorithms perform *some* transformation that maps a mathematical computable function.  The point is that the mathematical halting function is not a computable function, i.e. no algorithm / turing machine exists that can compute it, which you have agreed to.

 The stupid nonsense that HHH must report on the
direct execution of DD is conclusively proved
to be stupid nonsense.
 

False, as it must to be a solution to the halting problem:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly