Liste des Groupes | Revenir à a philosophy |
On 2025-06-13 15:22:04 +0000, olcott said:This code proves everything that I claimed beyond all possible doubt
On 6/13/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:I don't need to prove anything. It is sufficient to point out thatOn 2025-06-12 15:34:01 +0000, olcott said:>
>int DD()>
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
>
It is a verified fact that DD() *is* one of the forms
of the counter-example input as such an input would
be encoded in C. Christopher Strachey wrote his in CPL.
>
// rec routine P
// §L :if T[P] go to L
// Return §
// https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
void Strachey_P()
{
L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
return;
}
>
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article-abstract/7/4/313/354243? redirectedFrom=fulltext
>
It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" statement final halt state
because the input to HHH(DD) specifies recursive simulation.
False. It is not the reursive simulation that prevents the reaching
the simulation of the "return" statement. Instead, previention is
a consequence of the discontinuation of the simulation that the
input specifies.
When you try to prove this by providing ALL of the
details you will find that you are incorrect.
you have not proven anything. For this discussion a sufficient
proof that HHH aborts is simulation is that you have said it does.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.