Sujet : Re: key error in all the proofs --- Mike --- basis
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 14. Aug 2024, 17:31:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its* *own
"return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts*
>
Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and correct
emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation of DDD by HHH)
will reach that return.
>
A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been a
contradiction in terms.
HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
state.
That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and unlimited
emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
complete emulation would never halt.
What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
…