Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: The MYTH of UNCOMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS
Posted:
Jan 18, 2013 11:17 PM


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



