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