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.

The normally correspond to ALGORITHMS which COMPUTE a Computable Function.

>
>> 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)
>

Right, the FUNCTION is a MAPPING.

The Turing Machine is an ALGORITHM that COMPUTES the Function, making
the FUNCTION a Computatable Function.

> 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.
>
> M computes the function f(w).

Right, it COMPUTES it, it isn't the function.

When you drive a car, are you the car?

>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>