Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 4/28/2025 10:41 AM, dbush wrote:i.e. a computable function is a mathematical mapping for which an algorithm exists to compute in.On 4/28/2025 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:Computable functions are the formalized analogueOn 4/28/2025 10:18 AM, dbush wrote:>On 4/28/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:>On 4/28/2025 2:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:>On 28/04/2025 07:46, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>
>
<snip>
>So we agree that no algorithm exists that can determine for all possible inputs whether the input specifies a program that (according to the semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed.>
Correct?
Correct. We can, however, construct such an algorithm just as long as we can ignore any input we don't like the look of.
>
The behavior of the direct execution of DD cannot be derived
by applying the finite string transformation rules specified
by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD). This proves that
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
Category error. The mapping exists
of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the
sense that a function is computable if there
exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
function, i.e.
*given an input of the function domain*In other words, the algorithm, given an input in the domain of the mathematical function, returns the corresponding output of the mathematical function.
*it can return the corresponding output*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
There is a mapping from the input to HHH(DD) by applyingIn other words, the mathematical function that algorithm HHH is mapping is not the halting function, and therefore isn't a solution to the halting problem.
the finite string transformation rules specified by the
x86 language to this DD input that derives:
*no correctly emulated DD ever reaches its final halt state*
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.