On 12/12/2021 1:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will
>>>>>> remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why
>>>>> you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out
>>>>> and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>>>
>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
>>>> wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent, but
>>>> I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>
>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>
>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting
>>>> the same claims over and over and people making the same responses
>>>> over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO
>>>> and Richard both get something personally from posting, and all the
>>>> rest of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just by
>>>> kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>
>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought up
>>> before.
>>>
>>
>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key fact
>> here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant progress to
>> you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes in slightly
>> different words over and over.  The changes are all quite unimportant.
>>
>
> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
> theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an
> algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of
> the function domain it can return the corresponding output. Computable
> functions are used to discuss computability without referring to any
> concrete model of computation...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable for
> their inputs.
>
> As long as computable function H(x,y) correctly maps its inputs to a
> final accept or reject state that directly applies to the actual
> behavior of this actual input then the halt status decision of H is
> correct for this input.
>
> No function is ever accountable for anything besides its actual inputs.
> If it is the case that the input to H(P,P) never stops running unless it
> is aborted when H returns 0 it is necessarily correct and impossibly
> incorrect.
>
> *Any other instance of P(P) that is not an input parameter to H is
> totally irrelevant to the actual behavior of the actual input to H*
>

Another key breakthrough is that H is now defined to be a pure function
thus a computable function. Previously H required static local data.

>
>
> *Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2*
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>
>
>
>
>> Also, it is both childish and rude to deliberately insult posters in
>> the title of your posts.  More to the point, as a Deluded Dumbo you
>> are in no position to judge other poster's intelligence - you simply
>> lack the intellect to properly understand them!  That's not your
>> fault, but you have the capacity to at least remain polite, should you
>> choose that path. :)
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike.
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2021-12-12 12:58, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will
>>>>>> remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why
>>>>> you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out
>>>>> and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>>>
>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
>>>> wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent, but
>>>> I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>
>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>
>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting
>>>> the same claims over and over and people making the same responses
>>>> over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO
>>>> and Richard both get something personally from posting, and all the
>>>> rest of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just by
>>>> kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>
>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought up
>>> before.
>>>
>>
>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key fact
>> here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant progress to
>> you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes in slightly
>> different words over and over.  The changes are all quite unimportant.
>>
>
> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
> theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an
> algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of
> the function domain it can return the corresponding output. Computable
> functions are used to discuss computability without referring to any
> concrete model of computation...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable for
> their inputs.

And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what
the term 'computable function' means, despite it having been pointed out
to you several times yesterday. Your H is *not* a computable function.
It is not a function at all.

Are you fundamentally uneducatable, or do you simply ignore everything
that people here write?

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 12/12/2021 11:54 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>
>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play
>>> "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind
>>> you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>
>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why you
>> think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out and read
>> it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>
> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
> wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent, but I'm
> not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>
> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it didn't
> remind me of comp.theory.
It was the utter repetitiveness and the sense of tedium that produced.
It took everyone a while to acknowledge their contribution to the long
lasting an intolerable situation. Then there is the conclusion: "Hell is
other people!"
> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting the
> same claims over and over and people making the same responses over and
> over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO and Richard
> both get something personally from posting, and all the rest of us could
> easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just by kill-filing PO, so
> it's not really like the play, I think.]--
Jeff Barnett

On 12/12/21 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will
>>>>>> remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why
>>>>> you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out
>>>>> and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>>>
>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
>>>> wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent, but
>>>> I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>
>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>
>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting
>>>> the same claims over and over and people making the same responses
>>>> over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO
>>>> and Richard both get something personally from posting, and all the
>>>> rest of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just by
>>>> kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>
>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought up
>>> before.
>>>
>>
>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key fact
>> here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant progress to
>> you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes in slightly
>> different words over and over.  The changes are all quite unimportant.
>>
>
> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
> theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an
> algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of
> the function domain it can return the corresponding output. Computable
> functions are used to discuss computability without referring to any
> concrete model of computation...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable for
> their inputs.

Right, and H(P,P) is accountable for the computation P(P), which MEANS
the function P being directly called with the parameter P, under know
outside influnce of anything else.

I.E. The results of:

int main() { P(P); }

If you mean ANYTHING different in the interpretation of what H(P,P)
means, then you need to explain how this still relates to the supposedly
equivalent Turing Machines.

Remember, the Theory is ACTUALLY described in Turing Machines.

You H when given the input Wm w (where Wm is the representation of the
Turing Machine M) needs to give the results of what M w would do when run.

In this case M = H^, where H^ is built from your H by the template given
by Linz, So Wm is that representation and so is w

Thus, for H to be correct

H.q0 <H^> <H^> needs to go to H.qy if H^.q0 <H^> will halt in finite
time, and H.q0 <H^> <H^> needs to go to H.qn if H^.q0 <H^> will run
forever,

PERIOD.

Since, by construction H^.q0 w goes to H^.qx w w, and then has a copy of
H copied to that point, (with a loop added after H^.qy) we have that

H^.q0 w will go to H^.qx w w which, if H.q0 w w goes to H.qy goes to
H^.qy (and then loops) and if H.q0 w w goes to H.qn goes to H^.qn and halts.

If we let w be <H^> then we have:

H^.q0 <H^> goes to H^.qx <H^> <H^> goes to H^.qy if H.q0 <H^> <H^> goes
to H.qy and goes to H^.qn if H.q0 <H^> <H^> goes to H.qn

Thus any H that says its H <H^> <H^> is non-halting and goes to H,qn
means that its H^ <H^> will also go to H^.qn and Halt, and thus H is
proved to be WRONG in its answer.

Also, any H that says its H <H^> <H^> is Halting and goes to H.qy means
that this H^ <H^> will go to H^.qy and then loop forever, and thus is
wrong.

>
> As long as computable function H(x,y) correctly maps its inputs to a
> final accept or reject state that directly applies to the actual
> behavior of this actual input then the halt status decision of H is
> correct for this input.

Right, if ti COULD correctly map its input to the CORRECT final accept
or reject state based on the ACTUAL behavior of the input, it would be
correct.

Since it doesn't, it is incorrect.

>
> No function is ever accountable for anything besides its actual inputs.
> If it is the case that the input to H(P,P) never stops running unless it
> is aborted when H returns 0 it is necessarily correct and impossibly
> incorrect.

WRONG.

H must be a DEFINITE algorithn. what ever algorithm it is, it can
incorrectly answer Halting, or Non-Halit, or fail to answer. In all
cases it is wrong.

If it tries to refuse to give a wrong answer, it fails by not answering.

>
> *Any other instance of P(P) that is not an input parameter to H is
> totally irrelevant to the actual behavior of the actual input to H*
>

All instances of P(P) are identical and behave the same, at least if H
is actually the computation in needs to be. FAIL.

You show NO P(P) that behaves the way you claim. At best you show that,
depening on which H you look at, either H never answers, and fails to be
a decider, or H gives the wrong answer and fails to be correct.

An H that aborts its simulation has NOT proven that its input was
non-halting. PERIOD. (claims otherwise are just LIES).

>
>
> *Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2*
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>
>
>
>
>> Also, it is both childish and rude to deliberately insult posters in
>> the title of your posts.  More to the point, as a Deluded Dumbo you
>> are in no position to judge other poster's intelligence - you simply
>> lack the intellect to properly understand them!  That's not your
>> fault, but you have the capacity to at least remain polite, should you
>> choose that path. :)
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike.
>
>

On 12/12/21 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

> Another key breakthrough is that H is now defined to be a pure function
> thus a computable function. Previously H required static local data.
>

Nope, that is NOT what that means. NO 'code' is a Computable Function,
as a Computable Function is a mathematical mapping of one set to another.

It means that it may now qualify as an actual Algorithm that computes a
Computable Function.

That you keep making this error after being repeatedly pointed out to
you shows your lack of qualifications to talk about things in the domain.

Maybe you need to study what the words ACTAULLY mean, not what you think
they mean by just an uninformed glancing at some writings.

On 12/12/2021 2:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-12-12 12:58, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will
>>>>>>> remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why
>>>>>> you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out
>>>>>> and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>>>>
>>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
>>>>> wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent, but
>>>>> I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>>
>>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting
>>>>> the same claims over and over and people making the same responses
>>>>> over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO
>>>>> and Richard both get something personally from posting, and all the
>>>>> rest of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just
>>>>> by kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought
>>>> up before.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key fact
>>> here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant progress to
>>> you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes in slightly
>>> different words over and over.  The changes are all quite unimportant.
>>>
>>
>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>> theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an
>> algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of
>> the function domain it can return the corresponding output. Computable
>> functions are used to discuss computability without referring to any
>> concrete model of computation...
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>
>> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable
>> for their inputs.
>
> And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what
> the term 'computable function' means, despite it having been pointed out
> to you several times yesterday. Your H is *not* a computable function.
> It is not a function at all.
>
> Are you fundamentally uneducatable, or do you simply ignore everything
> that people here write?
>
> André
>

H is not accountable for anything besides the actual sequence of
configurations specified by this finite string
558bec8b4508508b4d0851e8d0ffffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3

because H is only accountable for corresponding to a computable function.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/12/21 7:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 2:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-12-12 12:58, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It
>>>>>>>> will remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why
>>>>>>> you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out
>>>>>>> and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and
>>>>>> it wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent,
>>>>>> but I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting
>>>>>> the same claims over and over and people making the same responses
>>>>>> over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO
>>>>>> and Richard both get something personally from posting, and all
>>>>>> the rest of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g.
>>>>>> just by kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought
>>>>> up before.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key
>>>> fact here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant
>>>> progress to you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes
>>>> in slightly different words over and over.  The changes are all
>>>> quite unimportant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>> theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists
>>> an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input
>>> of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
>>> Computable functions are used to discuss computability without
>>> referring to any concrete model of computation...
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>
>>> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable
>>> for their inputs.
>>
>> And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of
>> what the term 'computable function' means, despite it having been
>> pointed out to you several times yesterday. Your H is *not* a
>> computable function. It is not a function at all.
>>
>> Are you fundamentally uneducatable, or do you simply ignore everything
>> that people here write?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> H is not accountable for anything besides the actual sequence of
> configurations specified by this finite string
> 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e8d0ffffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3

WRONG.

Because that CAN'T be the encoding for the Computation P, because it
doesn't include the code for the algorithm of H that it uses.

FAIL.

You built P wrong, so your proof is just INVALID.

FAIL.

BY DEFINITION, an algorithm MUST contain the details for ALL the steps
needed to perform the operation.

Just shows you ignorance.

>
> because H is only accountable for corresponding to a computable function.
>

On 12/12/2021 2:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-12-12 12:58, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will
>>>>>>> remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why
>>>>>> you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out
>>>>>> and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>>>>
>>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and it
>>>>> wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent, but
>>>>> I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>>
>>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting
>>>>> the same claims over and over and people making the same responses
>>>>> over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO
>>>>> and Richard both get something personally from posting, and all the
>>>>> rest of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g. just
>>>>> by kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought
>>>> up before.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key fact
>>> here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant progress to
>>> you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes in slightly
>>> different words over and over.  The changes are all quite unimportant.
>>>
>>
>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>> theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an
>> algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of
>> the function domain it can return the corresponding output. Computable
>> functions are used to discuss computability without referring to any
>> concrete model of computation...
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>
>> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable
>> for their inputs.
>
> And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what
> the term 'computable function' means, despite it having been pointed out
> to you several times yesterday. Your H is *not* a computable function.
> It is not a function at all.
>

Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
corresponding output. Computable functions are used to discuss
computability without referring to any concrete model of computation
such as Turing machines... [RASP machines or their equivalent]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

Since a computable function is (model of computation agnostic) this
would be that it could be based on the RASP model or some other model.

A subset of C functions that have all the memory that they need could
also be computable functions as long as they are pure.

Pure function
In computer programming, a pure function is a function that has the
following properties:[1][2]

The function return values are identical for identical arguments (no
variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable
reference arguments or input streams).

The function application has no side effects (no mutation of local
static variables, non-local variables, mutable reference arguments or
input/output streams).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function

> Are you fundamentally uneducatable, or do you simply ignore everything
> that people here write?
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 12/13/21 1:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 2:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-12-12 12:58, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It
>>>>>>>> will remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why
>>>>>>> you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out
>>>>>>> and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and
>>>>>> it wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent,
>>>>>> but I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting
>>>>>> the same claims over and over and people making the same responses
>>>>>> over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO
>>>>>> and Richard both get something personally from posting, and all
>>>>>> the rest of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g.
>>>>>> just by kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought
>>>>> up before.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key
>>>> fact here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant
>>>> progress to you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes
>>>> in slightly different words over and over.  The changes are all
>>>> quite unimportant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>> theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists
>>> an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input
>>> of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
>>> Computable functions are used to discuss computability without
>>> referring to any concrete model of computation...
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>
>>> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable
>>> for their inputs.
>>
>> And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of
>> what the term 'computable function' means, despite it having been
>> pointed out to you several times yesterday. Your H is *not* a
>> computable function. It is not a function at all.
>>
>
> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
> corresponding output. Computable functions are used to discuss
> computability without referring to any concrete model of computation
> such as Turing machines... [RASP machines or their equivalent]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
> Since a computable function is (model of computation agnostic) this
> would be that it could be based on the RASP model or some other model.

Nope, you don't get it. (Remember Wikipedia is NOT an infallible source)

Computable Functions are, by definition, a sub-set of the category
'Function' (as used in Mathemematics), which if you look at your
favorite source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

Note, the function is the MAPPING, not the way to determine its values
(which might not even be computable).

Even the article you quote for Computatable Function makes a distinction
between the 'Function' and the the algorithm that computes them.

Computatble functions are modle agnostic because the Computable Function
DOESN'T include the algorithm as part of it. For example, a RASP
algrorithm would NOT likely be suitable to put into a Turing Machine. If
the RASP algorithm WAS the Function, then it couldn't also be a Turing
algorithm. The Computable Function is the Algorithm Independent Mapping
that Algorithms based on different models of Computation can all compute.

FAIL.

>
> A subset of C functions that have all the memory that they need could
> also be computable functions as long as they are pure.

Nope. Wrong type of thing. C functions, can be ALGORITHMS, but to be
that they need to be either leaf functions, or you include everything
they call as part of that algorithm.

>
> Pure function
> In computer programming, a pure function is a function that has the
> following properties:[1][2]
>
> The function return values are identical for identical arguments (no
> variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable
> reference arguments or input streams).
>
> The function application has no side effects (no mutation of local
> static variables, non-local variables, mutable reference arguments or
> input/output streams).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
>
>
>
>> Are you fundamentally uneducatable, or do you simply ignore everything
>> that people here write?
>>
>> André
>>
>
>

On 2021-12-12 23:21, olcott wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 2:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-12-12 12:58, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It
>>>>>>>> will remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why
>>>>>>> you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it out
>>>>>>> and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and
>>>>>> it wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent,
>>>>>> but I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO posting
>>>>>> the same claims over and over and people making the same responses
>>>>>> over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in hell, and PO
>>>>>> and Richard both get something personally from posting, and all
>>>>>> the rest of us could easily "escape" if we wanted/needed to e.g.
>>>>>> just by kill-filing PO, so it's not really like the play, I think.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought
>>>>> up before.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key
>>>> fact here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant
>>>> progress to you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes
>>>> in slightly different words over and over.  The changes are all
>>>> quite unimportant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>> theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists
>>> an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input
>>> of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
>>> Computable functions are used to discuss computability without
>>> referring to any concrete model of computation...
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>
>>> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable
>>> for their inputs.
>>
>> And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of
>> what the term 'computable function' means, despite it having been
>> pointed out to you several times yesterday. Your H is *not* a
>> computable function. It is not a function at all.
>>
>
> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
> corresponding output. Computable functions are used to discuss
> computability without referring to any concrete model of computation
> such as Turing machines... [RASP machines or their equivalent]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

You've quoted this passage numerous times now and every single time you
completely misinterpret it. Admittedly it is poorly written, but after
your error has been pointed out numerous times you'd think you'd either
read it more carefully or find a better source.

> Since a computable function is (model of computation agnostic) this
> would be that it could be based on the RASP model or some other model.

Computable functions are not based on *any* computational models,
because computable functions are *not* computations.

Computable functions and noncomputable functions are subsets of
*mathematical* functions.

A mathematical function is simply a mapping from one set to another. It
is nothing more than a set of ordered pairs which exists completely
independently of any method or algorithm which might be used to
determine that mapping.

A Turing Machine, on the other hand, is not a function. It is an
algorithm, that is a method which can be used to compute some function,
that is a method which can determine which element of the codomain each
element of the domain maps to.

There may be many different algorithms for computing a particular
function or there may be done. The algorithm and the function which the
algorithm computes are entirely different things.

> A subset of C functions that have all the memory that they need could
> also be computable functions as long as they are pure.

No C function is a computable function because the term 'function' in C
does not refer to mathematical functions. It refers to a block of code.

> Pure function
> In computer programming, a pure function is a function that has the
> following properties:[1][2]

Pure functions are a subset of *C* functions. They have nothing to do
with *mathematical* functions.

You need to learn that the same term might have different meanings in
different fields.

Computational theory is not concerned with programming languages like C.
The term 'function' in computational theory always refers to a
mathematical function, never a C function.

When talking about C you use the C definition.

When talking about Pascal, you use the Pascal definition, which is
different from either the mathematical or the C definition.

What you can't do is use these three definitions interchangeably as you
seem determined to do which leads you to all sorts of weird
misconceptions about what the things you are reading actually mean.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On 12/13/2021 9:42 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-12-12 23:21, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/12/2021 2:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-12 12:58, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's
>>>>>>>>> play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It
>>>>>>>>> will remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by why
>>>>>>>> you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search it
>>>>>>>> out and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but we'll
>>>>>>>> see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and
>>>>>>> it wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent,
>>>>>>> but I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO
>>>>>>> posting the same claims over and over and people making the same
>>>>>>> responses over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in
>>>>>>> hell, and PO and Richard both get something personally from
>>>>>>> posting, and all the rest of us could easily "escape" if we
>>>>>>> wanted/needed to e.g. just by kill-filing PO, so it's not really
>>>>>>> like the play, I think.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>>>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been brought
>>>>>> up before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key
>>>>> fact here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant
>>>>> progress to you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes
>>>>> in slightly different words over and over.  The changes are all
>>>>> quite unimportant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>>> theory...in the sense that a function is computable if there exists
>>>> an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
>>>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
>>>> Computable functions are used to discuss computability without
>>>> referring to any concrete model of computation...
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>
>>>> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable
>>>> for their inputs.
>>>
>>> And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of
>>> what the term 'computable function' means, despite it having been
>>> pointed out to you several times yesterday. Your H is *not* a
>>> computable function. It is not a function at all.
>>>
>>
>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
>> corresponding output. Computable functions are used to discuss
>> computability without referring to any concrete model of computation
>> such as Turing machines... [RASP machines or their equivalent]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>
> You've quoted this passage numerous times now and every single time you
> completely misinterpret it. Admittedly it is poorly written, but after
> your error has been pointed out numerous times you'd think you'd either
> read it more carefully or find a better source.
>
>> Since a computable function is (model of computation agnostic) this
>> would be that it could be based on the RASP model or some other model.
>
> Computable functions are not based on *any* computational models,
> because computable functions are *not* computations.
>
> Computable functions and noncomputable functions are subsets of
> *mathematical* functions.
>
> A mathematical function is simply a mapping from one set to another. It
> is nothing more than a set of ordered pairs which exists completely
> independently of any method or algorithm which might be used to
> determine that mapping.
>
> A Turing Machine, on the other hand, is not a function. It is an
> algorithm, that is a method which can be used to compute some function,
> that is a method which can determine which element of the codomain each
> element of the domain maps to.
>

A function f with domain D is said to be Turing-computable
or just computable if there exists some Turing machine
M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q0, □, F) such that q0 w ⊢* Mqff(w), qf ∈ F
for all w ∈ D (Linz:1990:243)

Olcott paraphrase of machine definition: Machine M begins at start state
q0 on input w and transitions to qf as a function of input w.

All computable functions are only accountable for their actual inputs
likewise for algorithms corresponding to computable functions.

H is only accountable to report on the sequence of configurations that
is stipulated by this finite string pair:
(558bec8b4508508b4d0851e8d0ffffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3,
558bec8b4508508b4d0851e8d0ffffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3)

_P()
[00001a8e](01) 55 push ebp
[00001a8f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001a91](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001a94](01) 50 push eax // push 2nd param
[00001a95](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001a98](01) 51 push ecx // push 1st param
[00001a99](05) e8d0ffffff call 00001a6e // call H
[00001a9e](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001aa1](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001aa3](02) 7402 jz 00001aa7
[00001aa5](02) ebfe jmp 00001aa5
[00001aa7](01) 5d pop ebp
[00001aa8](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00001aa8]

> There may be many different algorithms for computing a particular
> function or there may be done. The algorithm and the function which the
> algorithm computes are entirely different things.
>
>> A subset of C functions that have all the memory that they need could
>> also be computable functions as long as they are pure.
>
> No C function is a computable function because the term 'function' in C
> does not refer to mathematical functions. It refers to a block of code.
>
>> Pure function
>> In computer programming, a pure function is a function that has the
>> following properties:[1][2]
>
> Pure functions are a subset of *C* functions. They have nothing to do
> with *mathematical* functions.
>

They correspond to computable functions.

> You need to learn that the same term might have different meanings in
> different fields.
>
> Computational theory is not concerned with programming languages like C.
> The term 'function' in computational theory always refers to a
> mathematical function, never a C function.
>

A function f with domain D is said to be Turing-computable
or just computable if there exists some Turing machine
M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q0, □, F) such that q0 w ⊢* Mqff(w), qf ∈ F
for all w ∈ D (Linz:1990:243)

Olcott paraphrase of machine definition: Machine M begins at start state
q0 on input w and transitions to qf as a function of input w.

On 12/13/21 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 9:42 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-12-12 23:21, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2021 2:28 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-12 12:58, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2021 1:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/12/2021 19:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/12/2021 12:54 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 22:51, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/12/2021 05:08, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <...snip analysis...>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of
>>>>>>>>>> Sartre's play "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages
>>>>>>>>>> long. It will remind you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I've never heard of it!  But now I'm intrigued by
>>>>>>>>> why you think I might have studied it, so I'll actively search
>>>>>>>>> it out and read it.  :)  I don't get goose bumps easily, but
>>>>>>>>> we'll see.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I found a PDF with play, and I read it as it isn't too long, and
>>>>>>>> it wasn't bad I suppose.  (No regrets on my part for time spent,
>>>>>>>> but I'm not forwarding it to all my friends as a "must read!" :) )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still don't see why you thought I must have studied it, and it
>>>>>>>> didn't remind me of comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Well, the title "No Exit" could be taken as describing PO
>>>>>>>> posting the same claims over and over and people making the same
>>>>>>>> responses over and over - I expect that's it?  But we're not in
>>>>>>>> hell, and PO and Richard both get something personally from
>>>>>>>> posting, and all the rest of us could easily "escape" if we
>>>>>>>> wanted/needed to e.g. just by kill-filing PO, so it's not really
>>>>>>>> like the play, I think.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you weren't as dumb as a box of rocks you would see that every
>>>>>>> single month of posts has new details that have never been
>>>>>>> brought up before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know it may seem that way to you, but you're overlooking a key
>>>>>> fact here - you are a DELUDED DUMBO!  What seems like constant
>>>>>> progress to you, to me just seems like repeating the same mistakes
>>>>>> in slightly different words over and over.  The changes are all
>>>>>> quite unimportant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in
>>>>> computability theory...in the sense that a function is computable
>>>>> if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function,
>>>>> i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the
>>>>> corresponding output. Computable functions are used to discuss
>>>>> computability without referring to any concrete model of
>>>>> computation... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>
>>>>> The key new point is that computable functions are only accountable
>>>>> for their inputs.
>>>>
>>>> And once again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of
>>>> what the term 'computable function' means, despite it having been
>>>> pointed out to you several times yesterday. Your H is *not* a
>>>> computable function. It is not a function at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability
>>> theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is
>>> computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the
>>> function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return
>>> the corresponding output. Computable functions are used to discuss
>>> computability without referring to any concrete model of computation
>>> such as Turing machines... [RASP machines or their equivalent]
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>
>> You've quoted this passage numerous times now and every single time
>> you completely misinterpret it. Admittedly it is poorly written, but
>> after your error has been pointed out numerous times you'd think you'd
>> either read it more carefully or find a better source.
>>
>>> Since a computable function is (model of computation agnostic) this
>>> would be that it could be based on the RASP model or some other model.
>>
>> Computable functions are not based on *any* computational models,
>> because computable functions are *not* computations.
>>
>> Computable functions and noncomputable functions are subsets of
>> *mathematical* functions.
>>
>> A mathematical function is simply a mapping from one set to another.
>> It is nothing more than a set of ordered pairs which exists completely
>> independently of any method or algorithm which might be used to
>> determine that mapping.
>>
>> A Turing Machine, on the other hand, is not a function. It is an
>> algorithm, that is a method which can be used to compute some
>> function, that is a method which can determine which element of the
>> codomain each element of the domain maps to.
>>
>
> A function f with domain D is said to be Turing-computable
> or just computable if there exists some Turing machine
> M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q0, □, F) such that q0 w ⊢* Mqff(w), qf ∈ F
> for all w ∈ D (Linz:1990:243)
>
> Olcott paraphrase of machine definition: Machine M begins at start state
> q0 on input w and transitions to qf as a function of input w.
>
> All computable functions are only accountable for their actual inputs
> likewise for algorithms corresponding to computable functions.
>
> H is only accountable to report on the sequence of configurations that
> is stipulated by this finite string pair:
> (558bec8b4508508b4d0851e8d0ffffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3,
>  558bec8b4508508b4d0851e8d0ffffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3)
>
> _P()
> [00001a8e](01)  55              push ebp
> [00001a8f](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00001a91](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001a94](01)  50              push eax         // push 2nd param
> [00001a95](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001a98](01)  51              push ecx         // push 1st param
> [00001a99](05)  e8d0ffffff      call 00001a6e    // call H
> [00001a9e](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00001aa1](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
> [00001aa3](02)  7402            jz 00001aa7
> [00001aa5](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001aa5
> [00001aa7](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00001aa8](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0027) [00001aa8]

Whiich shows that P is NOT the needed Algorithm, since it isn't a
Algorithm at all, since it doesn't include the instructions at 1A6E
which it needs to in order to be performed.

Thus P(P) is NOT a computation, as the results depends on more than the
information provided.

FAIL.

>
>
>> There may be many different algorithms for computing a particular
>> function or there may be done. The algorithm and the function which
>> the algorithm computes are entirely different things.
>>
>>> A subset of C functions that have all the memory that they need could
>>> also be computable functions as long as they are pure.
>>
>> No C function is a computable function because the term 'function' in
>> C does not refer to mathematical functions. It refers to a block of code.
>>
>>> Pure function
>>> In computer programming, a pure function is a function that has the
>>> following properties:[1][2]
>>
>> Pure functions are a subset of *C* functions. They have nothing to do
>> with *mathematical* functions.
>>
>
> They correspond to computable functions.