Re: A UTM halt decider <is> a pure function of its inputs (crux basis of rebuttal)

[olcott]

On 3/25/2021 3:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-03-25 13:35, olcott wrote:

>> If any computation that can be expressed in the x86 language is a
>> Turing equivalent computation  AND
>
> 'Turing equivalent computation' doesn't mean anything. You are, once
> again, simply demonstrating that you don't know what these terms mean.
>
> Two computations can be equivalent (not 'turing equivalent').
>
> A *model* of computation can be Turing Equivalent.
>
> If the 'x86 language' (not that there is such a thing) is Turing
> equivalent, then any *computation* defined in the 'x86 language' can be
> performed by a Turing Machine. But not everything expressed in x86 code
> constitutes a computation.

If my halt deciding computation can be performed on a Turing machine
then it necessarily meets the formal definition of a computation, right?

When you try to tell me that black cats are not black I know that what
you say is not true.

>> My halt decider is expressed in the x86 language
>
> But fails to meet the formal definition of a computation.

This would mean that my halt deciding computation cannot be performed on
a Turing machine, right?

Since my halt deciding computation can be translated into the RASP
computational model and performed on a RASP machine this would prove
that it can be performed by a Turing machine, right?

>
> Why don't you actual learn what 'computation' means in the context of
> computational theory?
>
> André
>


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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