Sujet : Re: A computable function that reports on the behavior of its actual self is not allowed
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 13. May 2024, 20:59:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v1tnuo$3kjud$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/13/2024 1:27 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 13.mei.2024 om 18:41 schreef olcott:
On 5/13/2024 10:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 13.mei.2024 om 16:44 schreef olcott:
On 5/13/2024 9:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 13.mei.2024 om 16:10 schreef olcott:
On 5/13/2024 8:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 13.mei.2024 om 15:39 schreef olcott:
On 5/13/2024 4:34 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 12.mei.2024 om 21:27 schreef olcott:
Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue 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 it can return the
corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
A computable function that reports on the behavior of its actual
self (or reports on the behavior of its caller) is not allowed.
>
So, olcott uses his authority to create a new problem. Why would anybody be interested in such limitation?
>
>
The definition of computable function is an axiomatic basis
not any mere authority.
>
I was referring to the "is not allowed". If olcott uses his authority to introduce a new axiom with this sentence, a new problem is created. Who is interested in a system with this new limitation?
>
>
No decider can take an actual Turing Machine as its input.
>
>
Nobody is interested in this trivial remark.
A decider can have the description of a Turing machine as its input. The decider should decide about the actual behaviour of this machine, not about the way that the decider pleases to simulate the input, because that would tell at most something about the simulator, not about the input.
>
I see that you either don't want an honest dialogue or cannot
understand the underlying subject matter well enough to provide
an accurate review.
>
>
It is a pity to see that olcott does not understand the words well enough for his own benefit. As soon as he does not understand it, he thinks it is dishonest. It might be impossible to explain it to him in even simpler words.
In this way he will never understand what is said, so he stays with his pointless remarks.
>
>
Things that someone could say that doesn't understand the
subject matter oneself.
>
An honest dialogue provides reasoning behind any assertions.
A less than honest dialogue makes dogmatic assertions that
do not include any supporting reasoning.
>
A dishonest dialogue fails to ever provide reasoning behind
dogmatic assertions even when requested and often adds
insults and ad hominem attacks instead of any supporting
reasoning.
>
Is this a confession?
I provided my reasoning and you dismissed it out-of-hand
without any supporting reasoning for your dismissal.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
A computable function that reports on the behavior of its actual self is not allowed
Re: A computable function that reports on the behavior of its actual self is not allowed
