Date: Jan 18, 2013 11:17 PM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: Re: The MYTH of UNCOMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS

On Jan 19, 1:13 pm, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 7:13 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Assume a process exists that runs any other process and ADDS 1.
>
> No.
>
> Gee, THAT was easy!

So is falling off the Special Bus


>
>
>
> > Run 2 of these processes and cross the inputs.
>
> We DON'T DO *processes* around here!  WE do PROGRAMS!
> Every TM *has a PROGRAM*.  We are basically identifying these TMs
> with THE PROGRAM, NOT the machine!

Same thing but you have 2 identical programs
so people with brains refer to the uniquely identified processes.




>
>
>
> > Each process has it's one required argument.
>
> No, it doesn't.

Trivially so, just not trivial to write down in Text Post format.




>
>
>
> > P_1(P_2)
>
> The INNER P_2 in that DOES NOT HAVE an argument.


This is Process notation, not functions.

P1 -->  P2
P2 -->  P1


Same Proof as Turing's.

Just because YOU'RE too stupid to know anything about computers.

Halt is not a pure function, Turing proved the 1st Process Deadlock
Proof!

But nobody in SCI.MATH or SCI.LOGIC with their MATHS DEGREES even
knows what a DEADLOCK IS!

##############

this is WAY ABOVE GEORGE'S HEAD...

I think a HALTING PROGRAM will work with PROGRAM TRANSITIONS.

You Start with:

10 PRINT "FINISH"

and you CONSTRUCT ANY OTHER HALTING PROGRAM

with ALLOWABLE TRANSITIONS.

##################

But like I said... WAAAAY Above George's head and all the *Maths
Grads* who studied LOGIC LITERATURE because ART HISTORY DEGREE was
full!


Herc