Sujet : Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
De : rjh (at) *nospam* cpax.org.uk (Richard Heathfield)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 31. May 2025, 11:12:55
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Fix this later
Message-ID : <101ekn7$12895$3@dont-email.me>
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 25 26 27
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 31/05/2025 10:46, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-30 18:40:01 +0000, olcott said:
<snip>
>
to HHH(DDD)
does specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
No, it is not. Nobody has seen the input to HHH(DDD) running forever.
So the "non-halting" is not a verified fact.
The unfailingly patient Mike Terry will forgive me if I have remembered him incorrectly, but I seem to recall... wait... I can quote him:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just as a reminder I'll repeat the final outcome of all this:
- PO's H does decide NEVER_HALTS for TM H^ running with input <H^>.
- PO's H^ running with input <H^> in fact halts, in line with Linz logic (b) above.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
...so it halts. End of, one would think.
-- Richard HeathfieldEmail: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999Sig line 4 vacant - apply within