Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:11:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:The fact that HHH reaches its own "return" statementOn 6/11/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-06-10 16:10:49 +0000, olcott said:On 6/10/2025 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-06-09 14:46:30 +0000, olcott said:On 6/9/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 6/8/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:That is what HHH does.The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)>
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its *simulated
"return" instruction final halt state*
So, you think a partial simulation defines behavior?
>
Where do you get that LIE from?
It is also proof that HHH doesn't terminate.>>It only takes two simulations of DDD by HHH for HHH to correctlyI am no so stupid that I require a complete simulation of a>
non-terminating input.
Yes you are. You just express your stupidity in another way.
>
recognize a non-halting behavior pattern.
Either the pattern or the recognition is incorrect.
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state. This by itself *is* complete proof that the
input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.