Sujet : Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 08. Sep 2024, 14:46:58
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <1f7a86cb3710a6e34ece86b41bbee138a8de2ddf@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:56:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/7/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-06 11:42:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>
A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes the mapping
from its finite string input to the behavior that this finite
string specifies.
A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only whether
that behaviour is finite or infinite.
Like Sipser said.
New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
Hence HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
>
Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
HHH terminates, so DDD obviously terminates, too.
>
DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.
If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return and
therefore is not a ceicder.
The directly executed HHH is a decider.
If the called HHH behaves differently from the direcly executed HHH
then the DDD is not relevant to classic proofs of the impossibility of
a halting decider.
If you can't show encoding rules that permit the encoidng of the
behaviour of the directly executed DDD to HHH then HHH is not a halting
decider.
I SHOW THE ACTUAL EXECUTION TRACE AND EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH IT.
Your implementation is buggy.
-- 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.
…