Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/16/2025 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:That is compatible with the idea that Sipser scewed up or cheated.On 2025-05-15 23:43:27 +0000, olcott said:On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:One may indeed thik so. Or pehaps he knew what he was doing but cheated.On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:In other words you believe that professor SipserI overcome the proof of undecidability of the HaltingNope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
Problem in that the code that
"does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns"
becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.
screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
To sincerely agree with you without extreme care is an error.
> There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
> is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
> First you should understand the basic idea behind aThere he explains an error in your claim to meet the requirements that
> "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
> simulates its input, while observing each simulation
> step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
> in the simulation. A simple (working) example here
> is an input which goes into a tight loop.
(Mike says much more about this)
*Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.