Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

Am Tue, 06 May 2025 21:24:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/25 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 4:12 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 3:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 3:22 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 06 May 2025 13:05:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 5:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/5/25 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/5/2025 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

The above function VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE. You make no
attempt to show how my claim THAT IT VIOLATES COMPUTER
SCIENCE IS INCORRECT you simply take that same quote from a
computer science textbook as the infallible word-of-God.

What does it violate?

Unanswered for the ages.

Every function computed by a model of computation must apply a
specific sequence of steps that are specified by the model to
the actual finite string input.

>

You are very confused. An algorithm or program computes a
function.
>

Nothing computes a function unless it applies a specific set of
rules to its actual input to derive its output. Anything that
ignores its input is not computing a function.
>

False.  Anything that correctly associates a function's input to a
function's output for all elements of the function's domain does in
fact compute that function.
For example, given this function:
>
For all integers X and Y:
(X,Y) maps to 5
>
This algorithm computes it:
int foo(int X, int Y) { return 5; }
>

The rules that must be applied to the inputs are

>
Anything that can associate the input with the output.
>

WRONG!
Any defined process that CAUSES an INPUT to be associated with an
OUTPUT.
>

And it does, it causes ALL inputs to be associated with the value 5.

 
Ignoring the input cannot possibly be construed as computing the mapping
from the input.

It's not ignoring the input if they all map to the same value. How would
you compute a constant function?

--
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.