Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

fortune: cannot execute. Out of cookies.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

SubjectAuthor
* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
+- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?dklei...@gmail.com
+* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
|+* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Jeff Barnett
||`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
|| `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Jeff Barnett
|`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| | +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
| | |+- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| | |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| | | +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| | | |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| | | | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| | | |  `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| | | |   `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| | | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
| | |  `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Jeff Barnett
| | |   `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| | |    `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| | |     `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| | |      `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| | |       `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| | |        +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Ben Bacarisse
| | |        |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| | |        | +- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| | |        | `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Ben Bacarisse
| | |        `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| |  `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| |   `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| |    `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| |     `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| |      `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| |       `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| |        `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| |         `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| |          `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Ben Bacarisse
| |           `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
| |            +- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
| |            `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Ben Bacarisse
| `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
|  `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
|   `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
|    `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
+- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Andy Walker
 +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |+- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |  `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |    `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |     `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |      `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |       `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |        `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |         `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |          `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |           `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |            `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |             `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |              `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |               `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Ben Bacarisse
 |  +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  | |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |  `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |   |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |   |  `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   |   +- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |   |   `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  | |   |    `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   |     +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  | |   |     |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   |     | +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  | |   |     | |+- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |   |     | |+* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   |     | ||+* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |   |     | |||`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   |     | ||| +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  | |   |     | ||| |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  | |   |     | ||| | +* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   |     | ||| | |+* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  | |   |     | ||| | ||`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?[ decidability deciolcott
 |  | |   |     | ||| | || `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?[André G. Isaak
 |  | |   |     | ||| | |`- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |   |     | ||| | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?olcott
 |  | |   |     | ||| |  `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  | |   |     | ||| `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |   |     | ||`- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?André G. Isaak
 |  | |   |     | |`* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Malcolm McLean
 |  | |   |     | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Jeff Barnett
 |  | |   |     `- Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  | |   `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Ben Bacarisse
 |  | `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Richard Damon
 |  `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Ben Bacarisse
 `* Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?Ben Bacarisse

Pages:12345678910
Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [defeating Rice]

<A6Gdnc2zas3-CdX8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21480&group=comp.theory#21480

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:02:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
[defeating Rice]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si4khe$1nvt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<mJmdnfaWlv7Kbdj8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si4v6h$u4l$3@dont-email.me>
<Nc6dnYeBOsuRntv8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si531f$q3f$2@dont-email.me>
<CtmdnXIC2u_Di9v8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87a6k9blco.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h7ydndYbPtVt_Nv8nZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfy06shz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<r42dnY5Rb4T5d9r8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl4n7erw.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:02:09 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87bl4n7erw.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <A6Gdnc2zas3-CdX8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 39
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JCfonBKcaMvNDJUGIwiAGctAYHl6zJKsb6NHPcZrogqI+MdoWmCAXx7nV2yEsOc5zeQDgWXx7b3R+o6!Q8zSScGJkl5RNVLvilKtXKkKymEitcPC+EGrZmpnlURQ6Ter3CDHH/gdYnuO7oF04urfcPzH/Keg!mug=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3258
 by: olcott - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:02 UTC

On 9/20/2021 4:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/19/2021 6:43 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>>> But things have moved on because you are now just lying about
>>> something. As well as "H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly transitions to
>>> H.qy" you are telling me that "I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions
>>> to H.qn many times".
>>> Putting aside how many times you've said each of these, which one is
>>> true and which one is the lie?
>>
>> Ĥ.qx applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does correctly decide that its input never
>> halts unless it aborts the simulation of its input.
>
> Won't answer? I am not surprised. Here are the two things you've been
> very insistent upon (to the point of childish rudeness):
>

You are bright enough to know that questions having false
presuppositions do not have any correct answer.

> "No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many times."
>
> "I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many times."
>
> Which is, or was, true and which is, or was, a lie?
>

Self-contradictory expressions of language seem to be over your head.

H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is self-contradictory
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not self-contradictory

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21481&group=comp.theory#21481

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:21:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CtmdnXIC2u_Di9v8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:21:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 30
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-u5QSx5FCINd9U9E4cKSNg5duHT+jSEHFg8XhV59EA9swvnRq982rt8/sms+CBA+hhcl30V8ip7RK84k!lMbmP5KFGjurCvNvkWWRBbjyy2rO/lS2k1zXHa+hT2+zDjsIZSUghTG0sp65jfk7yRs0Me9oMiPX!7pE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2970
 by: olcott - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:21 UTC

On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>
> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines". It hints at
> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
> compute a different result).
>

Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
its input and the other one does not.

void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

P was intentionally designed to contradict the H halt decider.
P was not intentionally designed to contradict the H1 halt decider.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<i96dnQL238StBNX8nZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21482&group=comp.theory#21482

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:22:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CtmdnXIC2u_Di9v8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbHQ5unrfNr8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si8pa3$37b$1@dont-email.me>
<v6idnae2nraxdtr8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si8r5f$npo$1@dont-email.me>
<w_Wdnf4g-YWJZdr8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rFZ1J.43011$md6.14426@fx36.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:22:39 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rFZ1J.43011$md6.14426@fx36.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <i96dnQL238StBNX8nZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 91
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JPIjNrQ32Y59VWvJ6qiszPEIkH1Z3nrKANKlM69Q2X6VCTlvLpnKaUR5kOZpi1qh2lbx/4pSr9SBpy8!bS5e2tVvBjUgQq6ixi3mkJa6KQSkpbfwfxI5SAsu4PRRJb2BR6g+B8hHbMiruPBLRRX5/6LKdZ0c!1UY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4958
 by: olcott - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:22 UTC

On 9/20/2021 5:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/19/21 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/19/2021 9:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-19 20:00, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a brand new semantic error that I first discovered in 2004
>>>> and was only able to concretely formalize in the last two weeks as
>>>>
>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>> {
>>>>    if (H(x, x))
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> u32 PSR_Olcott_2004(u32 P)
>>>> {
>>>>    return H1(P,P) != H(P,P);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Those are simply lines of code. They don't 'formalize' anything.
>>
>> The rest of the fully opertational code that implements them does.
>>
>>> Finding that two procedure calls don't give the same result doesn't
>>> signal any sort of error.
>>>
>>
>> The Pathological self-reference error is why
>> "This sentence is not true" is neither true nor false.
>> It is (like H/P) self-contradictory.
>>
>
> That is meaningless in this context.
>
> In what sense are you claiming that P doesn't have a truth value?
>

>

Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
its input and the other one does not.

void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

P was intentionally designed to contradict the H halt decider.
P was not intentionally designed to contradict the H1 halt decider.

> It is clear, and you have accepted, that P(P) does Halt when run as a
> Computation. This is the proper value of the Question of does P(P) Halt.
>
> In what way does that running not have a value?
>
> The ONLY question you have shown to not have a value is the question,
> "What Should H return when given the input <P> <P> to be right?"
>
> That is NOT a question in view at this time, as once you have defined
> this PSC_Olcott_2004 as a machine, you HAD to have made whatever wrong
> choice to that question you are going to make.
>
> If you issue that H is actually DEFINED as returning the rtght value,
> then H is not a Computation, becuase it is not based on an actual
> algorithm, and it also means that you haven't written code that
> implements H because you can't write C code that actually implements
> that either.
>
> It seems what you have written is some code to implement the results of
> faulty logic that you just assume/'stipulate' must be correct, but which
> is actually unsound and wrong.
>
>>> The semantics of C are governed by the C standard. Unless you can
>>> point to some specific aspect of C semantics that are being violated,
>>> you can't call this a 'semantic error'.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [defeating Rice]

<87ilyu6gxz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21505&group=comp.theory#21505

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [defeating Rice]
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:05:44 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <87ilyu6gxz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si4khe$1nvt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<mJmdnfaWlv7Kbdj8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si4v6h$u4l$3@dont-email.me>
<Nc6dnYeBOsuRntv8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si531f$q3f$2@dont-email.me>
<CtmdnXIC2u_Di9v8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6k9blco.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h7ydndYbPtVt_Nv8nZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfy06shz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<r42dnY5Rb4T5d9r8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bl4n7erw.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A6Gdnc2zas3-CdX8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fd7cefd531736fe8cc6e56bbe7562799";
logging-data="31115"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ZIJugXyOz/AZDsGFeQ1/ZQwkbpw8G48E="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O4tKwOvzpJ1KyVBNW4sN/12tWCc=
sha1:IMMP147ifMoKdBMagub3Dv8K9x8=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.4006af52f638fd84ca60.20210920230544BST.87ilyu6gxz.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:05 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 9/20/2021 4:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/19/2021 6:43 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>>>> But things have moved on because you are now just lying about
>>>> something. As well as "H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly transitions to
>>>> H.qy" you are telling me that "I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions
>>>> to H.qn many times".
>>>> Putting aside how many times you've said each of these, which one is
>>>> true and which one is the lie?
>>>
>>> Ĥ.qx applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does correctly decide that its input never
>>> halts unless it aborts the simulation of its input.
>>
>> Won't answer? I am not surprised. Here are the two things you've been
>> very insistent upon (to the point of childish rudeness):
>
> You are bright enough to know that questions having false
> presuppositions do not have any correct answer.
>
>> "No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many times."
>> "I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many times."
>>
>> Which is, or was, true and which is, or was, a lie?
>
> Self-contradictory expressions of language seem to be over your head.
>
> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is self-contradictory
> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not self-contradictory

No, you can't wriggle out of it by pretending there is a difference like
that because you also wholeheartedly agreed that H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy.
Your exact words in reply to my saying this were:

| I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
| because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.

But you have, apparently, also said "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn"
"many times". On which occasions were you lying?

--
Ben.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21506&group=comp.theory#21506

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:06:01 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fd7cefd531736fe8cc6e56bbe7562799";
logging-data="31115"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bCFWrfLPSOYlaqhcbZslohBjA18t3NPU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pvTfykntXtHylaJM0J/sFwn1hJ8=
sha1:gP7N8+Fda6X7JEEYdlgohe5yA+0=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.e0eb529fd4cf8558bf1c.20210920230601BST.87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:06 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines". It hints at
>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
>> compute a different result).
>
> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
> its input and the other one does not.

No. I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions. Your secret C
code is another matter, of course. It's just the deception of calling
your code a "machine" that I was objecting to. It gives your hidden
code an air of formality that it lacks.

--
Ben.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<gq82J.30303$6u6.5889@fx03.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21512&group=comp.theory#21512

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me> <L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<87y27s6ssl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <77OdndEx-cAoddr8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee9j7ess.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xPudnZ8XN8DrDtX8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <xPudnZ8XN8DrDtX8nZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <gq82J.30303$6u6.5889@fx03.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:02:36 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6365
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:02 UTC

On 9/20/21 9:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 4:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/19/2021 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, 20 September 2021 at 00:01:19 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 22:38:41 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 23:55:52 UTC+1, André G.
>>>>>>>>> Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-18 16:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just defeated Rice's theorem, the other details are for
>>>>>>>>>>> another day.
>>>>>>>>>> How exactly have you managed to do that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless you know which is correct, your H1/H pair are unable to
>>>>>>>>>> reach a
>>>>>>>>>> decision at all regarding halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We construct two halt deciders, which are known to be correct,
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> than for "pathological" inputs. When fed such a "pathological"
>>>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>>>> one returns true and the other returns false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore using the two halt deciders and selecting the
>>>>>>>>> instances where
>>>>>>>>> they disagree, we have classified the "pathological inputs",
>>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>>> Rice's theorem states that cannot be achieved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you say that? Surely that depends entirely on the parts
>>>>>>>> you put
>>>>>>>> in scare quotes. PO (deliberately?) flip-lops between stating that
>>>>>>>> "pathological" inputs are characterised by a syntactic pattern
>>>>>>>> and by a
>>>>>>>> semantic property. Why do you even think he knows which one he is
>>>>>>>> talking about today?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm just summarising PO's argument so that others can understand
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> he is coming from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So help me understand where he is coming from today. Is he wrong
>>>>>> because two TMs that decide trivial properties don't refute Rice,
>>>>>> or is
>>>>>> he wrong because even one would do the job just as well as two?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The snag I see is that the two machines cannot be built, unless we
>>>>> define "pathological input" in a very narrow way, so narrow that it
>>>>> doesn't constitute one of the properties Rice was talking about.
>>>> That does not help me understand where he is coming from.  Is that what
>>>> he is doing today?
>>>>
>>>> You are not summarising his argument, but flattering it by
>>>> suggesting PO
>>>> means something (one thing) by it.
>>>
>>> He summed it up accurately.
>>
>> ... by leaving out the important bit.  I note you too will not commit to
>> saying which mistake you are making today but that is likely just
>> because you have no idea what I'm saying.  Let me try again: are you
>> wrong because the property is trivial (in the technical sense) or wrong
>> because it is not trivial and either of the two functions would
>> contravene the halting theorem (what you incorrectly describe as
>> "refuting") and therefore also Rice's theorem?  I.e. is your recent plan
>> trivial or pointless?
>>
>
> "This sentence is not true" cannot be correctly evaluated as true or
> false because it contradicts itself.
>
> "This sentence is not true: 2 + 3 = 7" is true and does not congtradict
> itself.
>
> The same thing goes for
> Olcott H1/H on input (P,P)
> and Linz H/Ĥ.qx on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

No, it isn't.

The question that H needs to answer is "Does the machine and input given
as a represented by the input to the decider Halt in finite time or
never Halt?"

Since to pose this question, The decider needs to have been fully
defined, and thus the machine H^ is also fully defined, this ALWAYS has
a definite answer.

Since H and H^ are definitely defined, the output of H (<H^>, <H^>) is
defined by those definitions, and the behavior of H^ is also definitely
defined.

FAIL.

Since you claim that your H will answer Non-Halting when given
H(<H^>,<H^>) then by the definition of H^, it will Halt.

NONE of that can't be correctly evaluated unless you have LIED about
having defined your code of H.

PERIOD.

Your faulty arguement is based on changing the code for H after the fact
to allow it to possibly give some other answer. THAT is not allowed.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<Cr82J.30304$6u6.947@fx03.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21513&group=comp.theory#21513

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx03.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CtmdnXIC2u_Di9v8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <Cr82J.30304$6u6.947@fx03.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:04:02 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2893
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:04 UTC

On 9/20/21 10:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>
>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines".  It hints at
>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
>> compute a different result).
>>
>
> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
> its input and the other one does not.
>

No. If they have this 'different' relationship with the input, they
aren't the same machine, or the 'machine' breaks the requirements and
bases its answer on more than its formal input.

> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   if (H(x, x))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> P was intentionally designed to contradict the H halt decider.
> P was not intentionally designed to contradict the H1 halt decider.
>
>

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<5G82J.15090$IO1.14165@fx19.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21515&group=comp.theory#21515

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx19.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me> <L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbHQ5unrfNr8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si8pa3$37b$1@dont-email.me>
<v6idnae2nraxdtr8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si8r5f$npo$1@dont-email.me>
<w_Wdnf4g-YWJZdr8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rFZ1J.43011$md6.14426@fx36.iad>
<i96dnQL238StBNX8nZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <i96dnQL238StBNX8nZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <5G82J.15090$IO1.14165@fx19.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:19:28 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5069
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:19 UTC

On 9/20/21 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 5:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/19/21 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2021 9:20 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-09-19 20:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is a brand new semantic error that I first discovered in 2004
>>>>> and was only able to concretely formalize in the last two weeks as
>>>>>
>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>> {
>>>>>     if (H(x, x))
>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> u32 PSR_Olcott_2004(u32 P)
>>>>> {
>>>>>     return H1(P,P) != H(P,P);
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Those are simply lines of code. They don't 'formalize' anything.
>>>
>>> The rest of the fully opertational code that implements them does.
>>>
>>>> Finding that two procedure calls don't give the same result doesn't
>>>> signal any sort of error.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Pathological self-reference error is why
>>> "This sentence is not true" is neither true nor false.
>>> It is (like H/P) self-contradictory.
>>>
>>
>> That is meaningless in this context.
>>
>> In what sense are you claiming that P doesn't have a truth value?
>>
>
>>
>
> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
> its input and the other one does not.
>
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   if (H(x, x))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> P was intentionally designed to contradict the H halt decider.
> P was not intentionally designed to contradict the H1 halt decider.
>

Right, which is TOTALLY allowed.

You have thus either proved that H and H1 are NOT the same computation,
or that Nither actually is a Computaiton.

Since H1 and H give different answer, they can't be the same ACTUAL
computation since this 'self reference' property isn't an input.

If H1 can distinguish itself from H, it isn't the same computation.

PERIOD.

>
>
>> It is clear, and you have accepted, that P(P) does Halt when run as a
>> Computation. This is the proper value of the Question of does P(P) Halt.
>>
>> In what way does that running not have a value?
>>
>> The ONLY question you have shown to not have a value is the question,
>> "What Should H return when given the input <P> <P> to be right?"
>>
>> That is NOT a question in view at this time, as once you have defined
>> this PSC_Olcott_2004 as a machine, you HAD to have made whatever wrong
>> choice to that question you are going to make.
>>
>> If you issue that H is actually DEFINED as returning the rtght value,
>> then H is not a Computation, becuase it is not based on an actual
>> algorithm, and it also means that you haven't written code that
>> implements H because you can't write C code that actually implements
>> that either.
>>
>> It seems what you have written is some code to implement the results of
>> faulty logic that you just assume/'stipulate' must be correct, but which
>> is actually unsound and wrong.
>>
>>>> The semantics of C are governed by the C standard. Unless you can
>>>> point to some specific aspect of C semantics that are being violated,
>>>> you can't call this a 'semantic error'.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21517&group=comp.theory#21517

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:33:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:33:40 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 44
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-P5EwsAOF+tOcqEg8Jm6Orq3KC8uMGPxCzKiS9WkOPOgGVFYBBgxa8nDeV1OTxapY2jXsaBjVnZZIE8r!GyoABWdm8sG+KIBXxBNIU1Cv/P3qtOPThYasqqQ0HGjoVZ2YWZUzZuk+Cbjf0Kli/A0xCNf+RNxJ!aaY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3528
 by: olcott - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:33 UTC

On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines". It hints at
>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
>>> compute a different result).
>>
>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>> its input and the other one does not.
>
> No. I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions. Your secret C
> code is another matter, of course. It's just the deception of calling
> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to. It gives your hidden
> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>

This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of understanding.

void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
}

Line 1 of main() specifies a different computation than line 2 of main()
even though the source code of H1 is a copy of H.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [defeating Rice]

<U9udncLaM-LNhtT8nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21519&group=comp.theory#21519

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:37:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
[defeating Rice]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si4khe$1nvt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<mJmdnfaWlv7Kbdj8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si4v6h$u4l$3@dont-email.me>
<Nc6dnYeBOsuRntv8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si531f$q3f$2@dont-email.me>
<CtmdnXIC2u_Di9v8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87a6k9blco.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h7ydndYbPtVt_Nv8nZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfy06shz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<r42dnY5Rb4T5d9r8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl4n7erw.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A6Gdnc2zas3-CdX8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilyu6gxz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:37:52 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87ilyu6gxz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <U9udncLaM-LNhtT8nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 55
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pggdynIIf9uuOGZ6dUUqw+v18Hmn+7zyBjwKlmdW7EfT0m76W4BCuKIazkmd8lOUYIzCDXSrbrR3uZm!Zc6+/NRWezcpAbfryXSrkyuQn/ZEKIofzkb2VvONynpmUILPfvw/Z4x6s2W5V296yZsWPrpMd3Mb!y+s=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4147
 by: olcott - Mon, 20 Sep 2021 23:37 UTC

On 9/20/2021 5:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/20/2021 4:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/19/2021 6:43 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But things have moved on because you are now just lying about
>>>>> something. As well as "H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly transitions to
>>>>> H.qy" you are telling me that "I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions
>>>>> to H.qn many times".
>>>>> Putting aside how many times you've said each of these, which one is
>>>>> true and which one is the lie?
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.qx applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does correctly decide that its input never
>>>> halts unless it aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>
>>> Won't answer? I am not surprised. Here are the two things you've been
>>> very insistent upon (to the point of childish rudeness):
>>
>> You are bright enough to know that questions having false
>> presuppositions do not have any correct answer.
>>
>>> "No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many times."
>>> "I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many times."
>>>
>>> Which is, or was, true and which is, or was, a lie?
>>
>> Self-contradictory expressions of language seem to be over your head.
>>
>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is self-contradictory
>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not self-contradictory
>
> No, you can't wriggle out of it by pretending there is a difference like
> that because you also wholeheartedly agreed that H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy.
> Your exact words in reply to my saying this were:
>
> | I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
> | because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
>
> But you have, apparently, also said "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn"
> "many times". On which occasions were you lying?
>

I never said the latter for one reason that I never include q0, you must
have gotten confused.

H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy because Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21521&group=comp.theory#21521

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 01:00:47 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fd7cefd531736fe8cc6e56bbe7562799";
logging-data="20698"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zKxcIV/vTKRFyc0lIzyVQLqMTdmMSYcM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zpulNPH3D8Uq+n+Vm0b6+LvhA8c=
sha1:yuYfLIhNbjXhUzeaaSmwBvLTk80=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.f5212648cb28cb82fc9d.20210921010047BST.877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:00 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines". It hints at
>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
>>>> compute a different result).
>>>
>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>> its input and the other one does not.
>> No. I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions. Your secret C
>> code is another matter, of course. It's just the deception of calling
>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to. It gives your hidden
>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>
> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of
> understanding.

You can't even write English. Saying "This is easily proven" following
a quote from me that you are wrong, means you can easily prove what I
said in the quote -- that you are wrong. That is indeed the case, but
it is unlikely to be what you meant to say.

Your junk functions are not "machines". The terms suggests an
undeserved formality.

--
Ben.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21522&group=comp.theory#21522

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:14:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:14:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 54
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-LZ4wd1rItqWfvt/vg4CAVv8FmJ+Fg8NbiwwnkRUtigZHWS7LmU4kUI2/CRK3d37x+2rkVzFxdRwV0o/!HPTzzcHyYLKffGMoS66RukDj2K1u9A7zuN3udjFoQtkYSkgkcY+2iINdumxk+M8XUFDm7bmpOhX1!MUE=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4039
 by: olcott - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:14 UTC

On 9/20/2021 7:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines". It hints at
>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>
>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>> No. I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions. Your secret C
>>> code is another matter, of course. It's just the deception of calling
>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to. It gives your hidden
>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>
>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of
>> understanding.
>
> You can't even write English. Saying "This is easily proven" following
> a quote from me that you are wrong, means you can easily prove what I
> said in the quote -- that you are wrong. That is indeed the case, but
> it is unlikely to be what you meant to say.
>
> Your junk functions are not "machines". The terms suggests an
> undeserved formality.
>

void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

The actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H1(P,P) is different
than the actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P).

This is an objectively verifiable fact.

Many people nowadays don't really give a rat's ass for objectively
verifiable facts.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [defeating Rice]

<871r5i69nj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21523&group=comp.theory#21523

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [defeating Rice]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 01:43:12 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <871r5i69nj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si4khe$1nvt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<mJmdnfaWlv7Kbdj8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si4v6h$u4l$3@dont-email.me>
<Nc6dnYeBOsuRntv8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si531f$q3f$2@dont-email.me>
<CtmdnXIC2u_Di9v8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6k9blco.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h7ydndYbPtVt_Nv8nZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfy06shz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<r42dnY5Rb4T5d9r8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bl4n7erw.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A6Gdnc2zas3-CdX8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilyu6gxz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<U9udncLaM-LNhtT8nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fd7cefd531736fe8cc6e56bbe7562799";
logging-data="4507"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7B3mo3oynuOFXXazPNjgCKwP5djiR2Is="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kq0dGqMhsb+HO4oHxjeiuQ6xlFw=
sha1:r8EGknevaN7666eKCEcyN0ae5g4=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.15f5412e1a97a959abc3.20210921014312BST.871r5i69nj.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:43 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 9/20/2021 5:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 4:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>>>> "No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many times."
>>>> "I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many times."
>>>>
>>>> Which is, or was, true and which is, or was, a lie?
>>>
>>> Self-contradictory expressions of language seem to be over your head.
>>>
>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is self-contradictory
>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not self-contradictory
>>
>> No, you can't wriggle out of it by pretending there is a difference like
>> that because you also wholeheartedly agreed that H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy.
>> Your exact words in reply to my saying this were:
>>
>> | I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
>> | because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
>>
>> But you have, apparently, also said "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn"
>> "many times". On which occasions were you lying?
>
> I never said the latter for one reason that I never include q0, you
> must have gotten confused.

Liar. Let's not allow your dishonesty to get lost in your smoke screen
replies. On the 18th Sep I said

"You agree that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ should transition to H.qy"

and you called that a fib. But I only said that you agreed because on
the 6th you had explicitly done so:

Me: "If your H has any pretensions of being a halt decider, it should
accept that string: H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy"

You: "I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement
mode."

You see? There you are saying I am fibbing about you agreeing to
something you agreed to less that two weeks earlier. You simply have no
concept of what being honest and truthful means. You will say whatever
you need to say to keep the boasting going.

But that's only lie number one. Let's look and anther new lie in this
very post. Re-quoting from above:

>> But you have, apparently, also said "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn"
>> "many times". On which occasions were you lying?
>
> I never said the latter for one reason that I never include q0, you
> must have gotten confused.

So what is "the latter" that you now say you never said? Surely it can
only mean "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn", something you know you
never said that because you never include q0. But here is, word for
word, what you said on the 18th, right after accusing me of fibbing:

"Furthermore I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many
times."

So it's a bold-face lie to say you "never said the latter for one reason
that I never include q0". There you are saying it, q0 included, while
having the brass neck to call me a liar.

And as for your dishonest and, frankly, cowardly ploy of trying to
pretend that "H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to ..." means something different to
"H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to ..." words fail me. What you think H is
transitioning from? Some unspecified state other than q0? No, "H ⟨Ĥ⟩
⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to ..." means that H does so from it's initial state, or
the notation is simply meaningless noise. (Mind you, meaningless noise
might be your intention. I'm sure you'll say so if that's the case.)

> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy because Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn

What do you think H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy means? That H transitions to H.qy
(on that input) from state H.q67? Don't be silly.

Anyway, dishonest notational ploys aside, you explicitly agreed to the
statement you called me a liar for saying you agreed to it. How can you
hold you head up in public?

--
Ben.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [defeating Rice]

<262dnRxYQsw_sdT8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21525&group=comp.theory#21525

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:51:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
[defeating Rice]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si4khe$1nvt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<mJmdnfaWlv7Kbdj8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si4v6h$u4l$3@dont-email.me>
<Nc6dnYeBOsuRntv8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si531f$q3f$2@dont-email.me>
<CtmdnXIC2u_Di9v8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87a6k9blco.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h7ydndYbPtVt_Nv8nZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfy06shz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<r42dnY5Rb4T5d9r8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl4n7erw.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A6Gdnc2zas3-CdX8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilyu6gxz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<U9udncLaM-LNhtT8nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871r5i69nj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:51:46 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <871r5i69nj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <262dnRxYQsw_sdT8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 75
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pDoV6K3JoYGzQ6xJY/c4VEyY6epBVrEp2VHC3J/v3gkf2Yub9TWG5bZkfWyIFUMJrLA25JjlxmG9y6b!xeJPI8BCyL1QPWgOiUPxhIQJ+6HpgghgllAnOxyyjVgNZGk3ghSnvxuNtKgSBQaLxjEi6iA5HAxP!FmQ=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5046
 by: olcott - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:51 UTC

On 9/20/2021 7:43 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/20/2021 5:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/20/2021 4:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>>>>> "No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many times."
>>>>> "I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many times."
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is, or was, true and which is, or was, a lie?
>>>>
>>>> Self-contradictory expressions of language seem to be over your head.
>>>>
>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is self-contradictory
>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not self-contradictory
>>>
>>> No, you can't wriggle out of it by pretending there is a difference like
>>> that because you also wholeheartedly agreed that H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy.
>>> Your exact words in reply to my saying this were:
>>>
>>> | I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
>>> | because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
>>>
>>> But you have, apparently, also said "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn"
>>> "many times". On which occasions were you lying?
>>
>> I never said the latter for one reason that I never include q0, you
>> must have gotten confused.
>
> Liar. Let's not allow your dishonesty to get lost in your smoke screen
> replies. On the 18th Sep I said
>
> "You agree that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ should transition to H.qy"
>
> and you called that a fib. But I only said that you agreed because on
> the 6th you had explicitly done so:
>
> Me: "If your H has any pretensions of being a halt decider, it should
> accept that string: H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy"
>
> You: "I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
> because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement
> mode."
>
> You see? There you are saying I am fibbing about you agreeing to
> something you agreed to less that two weeks earlier. You simply have no
> concept of what being honest and truthful means. You will say whatever
> you need to say to keep the boasting going.
>
> But that's only lie number one. Let's look and anther new lie in this
> very post. Re-quoting from above:
>
>>> But you have, apparently, also said "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn"
>>> "many times". On which occasions were you lying?
>>
>> I never said the latter for one reason that I never include q0, you
>> must have gotten confused.
>
> So what is "the latter" that you now say you never said? Surely it can
> only mean "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn", something you know you
> never said that because you never include q0. But here is, word for
> word, what you said on the 18th, right after accusing me of fibbing:
>

H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy because Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn

It is not really that hard ...

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<87pmt24uhp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21527&group=comp.theory#21527

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 01:56:02 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <87pmt24uhp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fd7cefd531736fe8cc6e56bbe7562799";
logging-data="4507"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+b8lTtlLek0cUfhtmwBElGNyHlR7vg99A="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jYmsNDkhk+2jzmmTqcwyBv3xCWM=
sha1:h7TyNAjCGwkdllyNC6iPWnpFDzA=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.ee46865bd19053e34acc.20210921015602BST.87pmt24uhp.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:56 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 9/20/2021 7:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines". It hints at
>>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
>>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>>> No. I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions. Your secret C
>>>> code is another matter, of course. It's just the deception of calling
>>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to. It gives your hidden
>>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>>
>>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of
>>> understanding.
>> You can't even write English. Saying "This is easily proven" following
>> a quote from me that you are wrong, means you can easily prove what I
>> said in the quote -- that you are wrong. That is indeed the case, but
>> it is unlikely to be what you meant to say.
>>
>> Your junk functions are not "machines". The terms suggests an
>> undeserved formality.

No reply?

> void P(u32 x)
> {
> if (H(x, x))
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> The actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H1(P,P) is different
> than the actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P).
>
> This is an objectively verifiable fact.

But until you post the code, only by you. I'll take your word for it,
since it's trivial, but I can't verify it myself.

Of course we must always consider the possibility that you are using
what you euphemistically call "poetic license" here. Maybe "actual
correct x86 emulation" is not actually correct or maybe not even x86
emulation! After all, two and half years ago, an "actual Turing
machine" wasn't one. And writing a UTM did not mean writing a UTM.

> Many people nowadays don't really give a rat's ass for objectively
> verifiable facts.

And you don't give a rat's ass about honesty. You lie about simple
facts that can be verified by anyone since the lies are in public posts.
I've just shown you two such lies or yours in a recent post.

--
Ben.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<cKKdnTZJPZ_PrNT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21528&group=comp.theory#21528

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:11:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmt24uhp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:11:46 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87pmt24uhp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <cKKdnTZJPZ_PrNT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 92
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-MdVBhG+tclPNzv6B5OY3r7DvILiawoUlkrC5/A5Br94MQCExahayPbRLmtP8N4fkLKaSiBKZKNCx4LS!nzIIfYyS7PfNpx3iBX+tDzh8lQaIMBNHdThmJYc2pH4sZGqhi6QGqN6W4H03benBloofm1ux4atA!dmk=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5809
 by: olcott - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 01:11 UTC

On 9/20/2021 7:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/20/2021 7:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines". It hints at
>>>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>>>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
>>>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>>>> No. I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions. Your secret C
>>>>> code is another matter, of course. It's just the deception of calling
>>>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to. It gives your hidden
>>>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>>>
>>>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of
>>>> understanding.
>>> You can't even write English. Saying "This is easily proven" following
>>> a quote from me that you are wrong, means you can easily prove what I
>>> said in the quote -- that you are wrong. That is indeed the case, but
>>> it is unlikely to be what you meant to say.
>>>
>>> Your junk functions are not "machines". The terms suggests an
>>> undeserved formality.
>
> No reply?
>
>> void P(u32 x)
>> {
>> if (H(x, x))
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> The actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H1(P,P) is different
>> than the actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>
>> This is an objectively verifiable fact.
>
> But until you post the code, only by you. I'll take your word for it,
> since it's trivial, but I can't verify it myself.
>

It is not trivial. It proves that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy is correct
thus proving that H exists.

> Of course we must always consider the possibility that you are using
> what you euphemistically call "poetic license" here. Maybe "actual
> correct x86 emulation" is not actually correct or maybe not even x86
> emulation!

This is easy enough to verify in my paper. Iff you know the x86 language:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

Correct x86 emulation is very easy in the x86utm operating system, the
x86 emulator library does all the real work. Verifying that it is
correct is also very easy simply look at the x86 source code and see
that the emulator emulates this code line by line as it is specified.

I had to manually adapt the emulator library so that it would
disassemble all of the functions in the COFF object file. The library
did more of the work here too. It could correctly disassemble a line as
long as it was pointed to the exact machine address of the line.

> After all, two and half years ago, an "actual Turing
> machine" wasn't one. And writing a UTM did not mean writing a UTM.
>
>> Many people nowadays don't really give a rat's ass for objectively
>> verifiable facts.
>
> And you don't give a rat's ass about honesty. You lie about simple
> facts that can be verified by anyone since the lies are in public posts.
> I've just shown you two such lies or yours in a recent post.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<qza2J.10311$mg5.1807@fx26.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21529&group=comp.theory#21529

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx26.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <qza2J.10311$mg5.1807@fx26.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:28:53 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3514
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 01:28 UTC

On 9/20/21 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines".  It hints at
>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will
>>>> never
>>>> compute a different result).
>>>
>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>
>> No.  I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions.  Your secret C
>> code is another matter, of course.  It's just the deception of calling
>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to.  It gives your hidden
>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>
>
> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of understanding.
>
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   if (H(x, x))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
> }
>
> Line 1 of main() specifies a different computation than line 2 of main()
> even though the source code of H1 is a copy of H.
>

Right, and since it is a DIFFERENT computation, it doesn't count that it
can decide P.

It is only the computation that P (really H^) is built on that matters.

Since H and H1 are different computaitons, H1 doesn't count.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<Aeednb1MrM3jq9T8nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21530&group=comp.theory#21530

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:33:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<qza2J.10311$mg5.1807@fx26.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:33:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <qza2J.10311$mg5.1807@fx26.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Aeednb1MrM3jq9T8nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 60
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-imNeclLbYwcGQ34jE+xK0XfadwpbYhu1x3+BkBrhH4llyCdytAITnrmd2OEfBCIfqSwVZydzVShVxVU!THOxKWyxYaRjBEoHo5dHYz4mTxUBNqlw0RBfdNWNRv820z0VfosXQwkTVT8uU+JgQxv4IdaJoA/i!Ulg=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4264
 by: olcott - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 01:33 UTC

On 9/20/2021 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/20/21 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines".  It hints at
>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will
>>>>> never
>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>
>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>>
>>> No.  I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions.  Your secret C
>>> code is another matter, of course.  It's just the deception of calling
>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to.  It gives your hidden
>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>>
>>
>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of understanding.
>>
>> void P(u32 x)
>> {
>>   if (H(x, x))
>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
>> }
>>
>> Line 1 of main() specifies a different computation than line 2 of main()
>> even though the source code of H1 is a copy of H.
>>
>
> Right, and since it is a DIFFERENT computation, it doesn't count that it
> can decide P.
>
> It is only the computation that P (really H^) is built on that matters.
>
> Since H and H1 are different computaitons, H1 doesn't count.
>

They are only different because of the pathological self reference
(self-contradiction) error. All inputs not having this error relative to
their halt decider derive identical results for both H and H1.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<87ee9i4s7f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21533&group=comp.theory#21533

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:45:24 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <87ee9i4s7f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmt24uhp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cKKdnTZJPZ_PrNT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fd7cefd531736fe8cc6e56bbe7562799";
logging-data="19443"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TNUKOsu/ATLZydQpNTBPHLS2FATAwjVQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qKh4hjnHNLuPpFODZehxdTBpFsA=
sha1:JRqf24C0vO9CC07M3FyM9xVeUu4=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.39e0c7d14af0883186dc.20210921024524BST.87ee9i4s7f.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 01:45 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 9/20/2021 7:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 7:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines". It hints at
>>>>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>>>>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
>>>>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>>>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>>>>> No. I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions. Your secret C
>>>>>> code is another matter, of course. It's just the deception of calling
>>>>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to. It gives your hidden
>>>>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of
>>>>> understanding.
>>>> You can't even write English. Saying "This is easily proven" following
>>>> a quote from me that you are wrong, means you can easily prove what I
>>>> said in the quote -- that you are wrong. That is indeed the case, but
>>>> it is unlikely to be what you meant to say.
>>>>
>>>> Your junk functions are not "machines". The terms suggests an
>>>> undeserved formality.
>> No reply?
>>
>>> void P(u32 x)
>>> {
>>> if (H(x, x))
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H1(P,P) is different
>>> than the actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>
>>> This is an objectively verifiable fact.
>> But until you post the code, only by you. I'll take your word for it,
>> since it's trivial, but I can't verify it myself.
>
> It is not trivial.

I was commenting on what you wrote. What you stated about the mystery
code is utterly trivial.

> It proves that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy is correct
> thus proving that H exists.

Does anyone doubt that your H exists? You've shown traces of it solving
the POOH problem.

--
Ben.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<FrOdnUBMANukp9T8nZ2dnUU7-cHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21534&group=comp.theory#21534

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:49:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmt24uhp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cKKdnTZJPZ_PrNT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee9i4s7f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 20:49:45 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87ee9i4s7f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <FrOdnUBMANukp9T8nZ2dnUU7-cHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 80
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-22iMLPGf5JthdfscXF3tvHmIIlJbwH4ihvT6aIkewDbBibhg+Uov1/LtfvRZwv9k/EeCDvEHEANgEwR!TkRf0MeQmdWXI5cjT/VNbgR2ONlUtqqSzWNSJwCIUbgiqXK+YsQSKmK4a8Dgd1WdWw22P+1f2SzS!Ij8=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4966
 by: olcott - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 01:49 UTC

On 9/20/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/20/2021 7:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/20/2021 7:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines". It hints at
>>>>>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a copy of
>>>>>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will never
>>>>>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>>>>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>>>>>> No. I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions. Your secret C
>>>>>>> code is another matter, of course. It's just the deception of calling
>>>>>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to. It gives your hidden
>>>>>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of
>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>> You can't even write English. Saying "This is easily proven" following
>>>>> a quote from me that you are wrong, means you can easily prove what I
>>>>> said in the quote -- that you are wrong. That is indeed the case, but
>>>>> it is unlikely to be what you meant to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your junk functions are not "machines". The terms suggests an
>>>>> undeserved formality.
>>> No reply?
>>>
>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>> {
>>>> if (H(x, x))
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H1(P,P) is different
>>>> than the actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> This is an objectively verifiable fact.
>>> But until you post the code, only by you. I'll take your word for it,
>>> since it's trivial, but I can't verify it myself.
>>
>> It is not trivial.
>
> I was commenting on what you wrote. What you stated about the mystery
> code is utterly trivial.
>
>> It proves that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy is correct
>> thus proving that H exists.
>
> Does anyone doubt that your H exists? You've shown traces of it solving
> the POOH problem.
>

It proves that the Linz H exists nitwit !

Are you too damn stupid like Richard to understand that Ĥ
ALWAYS REFERS TO LINZ
ALWAYS REFERS TO LINZ
ALWAYS REFERS TO LINZ
ALWAYS REFERS TO LINZ

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [defeating Rice]

<878rzq4r1g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21536&group=comp.theory#21536

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [defeating Rice]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 03:10:35 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <878rzq4r1g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si4khe$1nvt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<mJmdnfaWlv7Kbdj8nZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si4v6h$u4l$3@dont-email.me>
<Nc6dnYeBOsuRntv8nZ2dnUU7-QfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si531f$q3f$2@dont-email.me>
<CtmdnXIC2u_Di9v8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<si55gs$aa2$1@dont-email.me>
<L5-dnUtHucSVgNv8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6k9blco.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h7ydndYbPtVt_Nv8nZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfy06shz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<r42dnY5Rb4T5d9r8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bl4n7erw.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A6Gdnc2zas3-CdX8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilyu6gxz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<U9udncLaM-LNhtT8nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r5i69nj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<262dnRxYQsw_sdT8nZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="fd7cefd531736fe8cc6e56bbe7562799";
logging-data="27248"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sekdUMcpZ94EqaWmF900wP/zHkq+SsZk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wfHnJjQnfe54CgJlj4u8Zx9XQKk=
sha1:TEJLBmrNhEl49umPRN7qcJ/etXE=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.6ee0ad08e022653ba945.20210921031035BST.878rzq4r1g.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:10 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 9/20/2021 7:43 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 5:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/20/2021 4:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many times."
>>>>>> "I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many times."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is, or was, true and which is, or was, a lie?
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-contradictory expressions of language seem to be over your head.
>>>>>
>>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is self-contradictory
>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not self-contradictory
>>>>
>>>> No, you can't wriggle out of it by pretending there is a difference like
>>>> that because you also wholeheartedly agreed that H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy.
>>>> Your exact words in reply to my saying this were:
>>>>
>>>> | I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
>>>> | because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
>>>>
>>>> But you have, apparently, also said "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn"
>>>> "many times". On which occasions were you lying?
>>>
>>> I never said the latter for one reason that I never include q0, you
>>> must have gotten confused.
>>
>> Liar. Let's not allow your dishonesty to get lost in your smoke screen
>> replies. On the 18th Sep I said
>> "You agree that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ should transition to H.qy"
>> and you called that a fib. But I only said that you agreed because on
>> the 6th you had explicitly done so:
>> Me: "If your H has any pretensions of being a halt decider, it should
>> accept that string: H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy"
>> You: "I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
>> because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement
>> mode."
>> You see? There you are saying I am fibbing about you agreeing to
>> something you agreed to less that two weeks earlier. You simply have no
>> concept of what being honest and truthful means. You will say whatever
>> you need to say to keep the boasting going.
>> But that's only lie number one. Let's look and anther new lie in this
>> very post. Re-quoting from above:
>>
>>>> But you have, apparently, also said "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn"
>>>> "many times". On which occasions were you lying?
>>>
>>> I never said the latter for one reason that I never include q0, you
>>> must have gotten confused.
>>
>> So what is "the latter" that you now say you never said? Surely it can
>> only mean "H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn", something you know you
>> never said that because you never include q0. But here is, word for
>> word, what you said on the 18th, right after accusing me of fibbing:

You cut the evidence of your latest lie. My post continued

>> "Furthermore I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many
>> times."
>>
>> So it's a bold-face lie to say you "never said the latter for one reason
>> that I never include q0". There you are saying it, q0 included, while
>> having the brass neck to call me a liar.

You have a depressingly casual reaction to having your lies laid out
like this. You don't even seem to care that you've been caught being so
dishonest. Has it just become a part of how you do things now?

> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy because Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>
> It is not really that hard ...

But while you continue to lie with impunity, no one should take notice
of a thing you say. Tomorrow you might call me a liar for saying
exactly what you've said just now. You might deny ever having said it.
How can any debate happen if, when you don't like the way things are
going, you are prepared to say the opposite and accuse anyone who
reminds you of your former claims of fibbing?

--
Ben.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<Acb2J.135913$o45.5370@fx46.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21537&group=comp.theory#21537

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!178.20.174.213.MISMATCH!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx46.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <Acb2J.135913$o45.5370@fx46.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:12:47 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4437
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:12 UTC

On 9/20/21 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 7:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines".  It
>>>>>> hints at
>>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a
>>>>>> copy of
>>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>>> No.  I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions.  Your secret C
>>>> code is another matter, of course.  It's just the deception of calling
>>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to.  It gives your hidden
>>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>>
>>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of
>>> understanding.
>>
>> You can't even write English.  Saying "This is easily proven" following
>> a quote from me that you are wrong, means you can easily prove what I
>> said in the quote -- that you are wrong.  That is indeed the case, but
>> it is unlikely to be what you meant to say.
>>
>> Your junk functions are not "machines".  The terms suggests an
>> undeserved formality.
>>
>
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   if (H(x, x))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> The actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H1(P,P) is different
> than the actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P).

Which means that your emulator is broken, or H isn't a Computation.

PERIOD.

It is a basic fact that a program that is a compuatation, like P (aka
H^) needs to be, because H needs to be, will ALWAYS behave the same
given the same input.

THIS IS HOW COMPUTERS WORK.

If P(P) behaves differently depending on who is simulating it, then
either the simulator is not correct, or the decider, H, that it is built
on is not the REQUIRED computation.

You have just PROVED that your 'proof' is flawed.

PERIOD.

YOU FAIL.

>
> This is an objectively verifiable fact.
>
> Many people nowadays don't really give a rat's ass for objectively
> verifiable facts.
>

So, you have just OBJECTIVELY VERIFIED that your proof is a rat's ass.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<Gfb2J.43789$3p3.23888@fx16.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21538&group=comp.theory#21538

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx16.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmt24uhp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cKKdnTZJPZ_PrNT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cKKdnTZJPZ_PrNT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <Gfb2J.43789$3p3.23888@fx16.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:16:06 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6042
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:16 UTC

On 9/20/21 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 7:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/20/2021 7:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines".  It
>>>>>>>> hints at
>>>>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a
>>>>>>>> copy of
>>>>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it
>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>>>>> No.  I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions.  Your
>>>>>> secret C
>>>>>> code is another matter, of course.  It's just the deception of
>>>>>> calling
>>>>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to.  It gives your hidden
>>>>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of
>>>>> understanding.
>>>> You can't even write English.  Saying "This is easily proven" following
>>>> a quote from me that you are wrong, means you can easily prove what I
>>>> said in the quote -- that you are wrong.  That is indeed the case, but
>>>> it is unlikely to be what you meant to say.
>>>>
>>>> Your junk functions are not "machines".  The terms suggests an
>>>> undeserved formality.
>>
>> No reply?
>>
>>> void P(u32 x)
>>> {
>>>    if (H(x, x))
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H1(P,P) is different
>>> than the actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>
>>> This is an objectively verifiable fact.
>>
>> But until you post the code, only by you.  I'll take your word for it,
>> since it's trivial, but I can't verify it myself.
>>
>
> It is not trivial. It proves that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy is correct
> thus proving that H exists.

Except the H that H^ (you call P) didn't go there.

Only H1, which as you admit is a DIFFERENT computation, and thus CAN'T
be the equivalent to the H that H^/P was built on, so it doesn't matter
what it answered.
>
>> Of course we must always consider the possibility that you are using
>> what you euphemistically call "poetic license" here.  Maybe "actual
>> correct x86 emulation" is not actually correct or maybe not even x86
>> emulation! 
>
> This is easy enough to verify in my paper. Iff you know the x86 language:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
> Correct x86 emulation is very easy in the x86utm operating system, the
> x86 emulator library does all the real work. Verifying that it is
> correct is also very easy simply look at the x86 source code and see
> that the emulator emulates this code line by line as it is specified.

So, you still have that a 'correct; x86 when executing a 'Call 00000966'
instruction will go to 00000C46 ?

That shows you are broken.

>
> I had to manually adapt the emulator library so that it would
> disassemble all of the functions in the COFF object file. The library
> did more of the work here too. It could correctly disassemble a line as
> long as it was pointed to the exact machine address of the line.
>
>> After all, two and half years ago, an "actual Turing
>> machine" wasn't one.  And writing a UTM did not mean writing a UTM.
>>
>>> Many people nowadays don't really give a rat's ass for objectively
>>> verifiable facts.
>>
>> And you don't give a rat's ass about honesty.  You lie about simple
>> facts that can be verified by anyone since the lies are in public posts.
>> I've just shown you two such lies or yours in a recent post.
>>
>
>

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?

<Xkb2J.32106$6U3.5490@fx43.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21539&group=comp.theory#21539

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx43.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<12r1J.107151$lC6.16042@fx41.iad>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<qza2J.10311$mg5.1807@fx26.iad>
<Aeednb1MrM3jq9T8nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Aeednb1MrM3jq9T8nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <Xkb2J.32106$6U3.5490@fx43.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 22:21:43 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4800
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:21 UTC

On 9/20/21 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/20/2021 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/20/21 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines".  It
>>>>>> hints at
>>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a
>>>>>> copy of
>>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>>>
>>>> No.  I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions.  Your secret C
>>>> code is another matter, of course.  It's just the deception of calling
>>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to.  It gives your hidden
>>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of understanding.
>>>
>>> void P(u32 x)
>>> {
>>>    if (H(x, x))
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>> }
>>>
>>> Line 1 of main() specifies a different computation than line 2 of main()
>>> even though the source code of H1 is a copy of H.
>>>
>>
>> Right, and since it is a DIFFERENT computation, it doesn't count that it
>> can decide P.
>>
>> It is only the computation that P (really H^) is built on that matters.
>>
>> Since H and H1 are different computaitons, H1 doesn't count.
>>
>
> They are only different because of the pathological self reference
> (self-contradiction) error. All inputs not having this error relative to
> their halt decider derive identical results for both H and H1.
>

There is NO 'pathological self reference error' for Turing machines,
because they CAN'T self reference, only provide copies.

The Decider is required to work of ALL input, it can't just claim that
some input are 'invalid', as that isn't a thing with Turing Machines.

BY DEFINITION, if two machines give a different output for the same
input they CAN'T be the same Computation.

You are just PROVING that your H/H1 isn't actually a Computation.

While just because it uses things like static local variables doesn't
automatically make it not a Computation, it does make that fact very
likely, and this results absolutely PROVES that it is the case.

Basic Definition, Same Algorithm + Same Input => Different Output means
it isn't a Computation. PERIOD.

No 'pathological' exceptions. PERIOD.

YOU LOSE.

Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [ computation ? ]

<mOidnQHsVe4z39T8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=21540&group=comp.theory#21540

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:25:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Why do theory of computation problems require pure functions? [
computation ? ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <a7WdnftR4JAUzNj8nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<caKdncaNf93r3dv8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<axr1J.55095$jm6.40535@fx07.iad>
<4dqdnW74K8nv1Nv8nZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Sds1J.75975$z%4.33404@fx37.iad>
<0LKdnQW0_vXAz9v8nZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5o18$ca0$1@dont-email.me>
<b8qdnUQWUNeC-Nv8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5p69$qpa$1@dont-email.me>
<i6WdnR3uOcyR9Nv8nZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <si5qpm$srv$1@dont-email.me>
<b885b582-6153-4184-8dad-aed5dfc83cecn@googlegroups.com>
<87bl4o9rfk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9f3d89f7-6040-4d9f-96e8-4fb18bf6985fn@googlegroups.com>
<877dfc891e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<95d4a88f-8fbe-4151-a6bf-c83103d77f1bn@googlegroups.com>
<GdSdnbDQ5umIf9r8nZ2dnUU7-UednZ2d@giganews.com> <875yuv7ei8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i96dnQP238RsBdX8nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsty6gxi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VtmdnSy6oZ3Jh9T8nZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877dfa6bm8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<me2dnZOPq6pzvtT8nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Acb2J.135913$o45.5370@fx46.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 21:25:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Acb2J.135913$o45.5370@fx46.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <mOidnQHsVe4z39T8nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 81
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-9IEOBFZOOXfn6WREBOwtlhoaIg4UqIXyz9DrpTec7jGgIqOMxsjbVf9nuYX5up+x5yJ7AzGXSOA3XE/!voSlAkpGrB4VCnbXR5eoopnVv93Y45LRFHEBbRXd5OOigU1GWoXxijRfyIFHkMNmnvmh2td0biLF!laA=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5183
 by: olcott - Tue, 21 Sep 2021 02:25 UTC

On 9/20/2021 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/20/21 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/20/2021 7:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/20/2021 5:00 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The two machines are already fully operational.
>>>>>>>> H1 is merely a copy of H.
>>>>>>> It's deceptive to call your secret C functions "machines".  It
>>>>>>> hints at
>>>>>>> the formality a clarity of Turing machines, but a TM that is a
>>>>>>> copy of
>>>>>>> another will have exactly the same transfer function (i.e. it will
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> compute a different result).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless one of them has a pathological self-reference relationship with
>>>>>> its input and the other one does not.
>>>>> No.  I stated a fact (about TMs) that has no exceptions.  Your secret C
>>>>> code is another matter, of course.  It's just the deception of calling
>>>>> your code a "machine" that I was objecting to.  It gives your hidden
>>>>> code an air of formality that it lacks.
>>>>
>>>> This is easily proven in a way that you are incapable of
>>>> understanding.
>>>
>>> You can't even write English.  Saying "This is easily proven" following
>>> a quote from me that you are wrong, means you can easily prove what I
>>> said in the quote -- that you are wrong.  That is indeed the case, but
>>> it is unlikely to be what you meant to say.
>>>
>>> Your junk functions are not "machines".  The terms suggests an
>>> undeserved formality.
>>>
>>
>> void P(u32 x)
>> {
>>   if (H(x, x))
>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> The actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H1(P,P) is different
>> than the actual correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P).
>
> Which means that your emulator is broken, or H isn't a Computation.
>
> PERIOD.
>

That would mean that "a computation" cannot possibly determine that it
has been invoked in infinitely recursive simulation, whereas a C
function with a a pair of static local variables can.

This means that a C function can do something that a TM cannot do thus
making it strictly more powerful than a TM. Since this seems implausible
I estimate that you are simply wrong.

> It is a basic fact that a program that is a compuatation, like P (aka
> H^) needs to be, because H needs to be, will ALWAYS behave the same
> given the same input.
>

A function with the same input must always derive the same output.
This is not the same as saying that a copy of a function with the same
input must derive the same output.

In H/P P calls H.
In H1/P P calls H (not H1).
This makes functions with a copy of the same code behave differently.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Pages:12345678910
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor