Re: Computable Functions --- finite string transformation rules

On 4/26/25 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.

You should, becuaee you are too ignorant of the field to know what he said.

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

No, you don't understand the not-stopping part of that defintion.

 This seems to prove that these "other people"
are liars.

No., it proves that you are a stupid liar that can't see your own stupdity.
Note, the fact that you answer to anyone point out an error is to just say they are wrong and repeat your position.
That is very strong evidence that you actually have no basis for your claims but your own guesses as to what should be.
Truth can explain itself in more details. Lies hit a point when they can't break themselves down simpler without being to obvious ablut their errors.
You have reached that point, which is why you can't actually reply to the errors pointed out, and resort to fallacies like deflection and asking for proofs you are wrong.

 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

??? That is a fundamental property of the operation of a Turing Machine. Each step of a Turing Machine does a simple finite string operation, and these are cascaded by their algorithm to create their results.
The problem is they can ONLY do transformation that can be broken down into those simple steps.

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

What is wrong about that? You don't seem to understand the difference between ability and requirements.
Of course, you have many such things you just don't understand, because you have many fundamental errors in the basics of logic.