Sujet : Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. Aug 2024, 18:54:21
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <2c13788e85c998e11a449b633b6b8464521c1433@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 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/16/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 11:47 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:07:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/16/2024 9:59 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>
Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH can reach the "return"
instruction of DDD it is construed that this instance of DDD never
halts.
But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an unlimited
emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
Not at all. never has.
Yes, because DDD is defined to call its simulator. If you change the
simulator to abort, you also change the simulated HHH. Nobody cares
about HHH aborting a pure simulator.
>
HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation would
be.
The HHH that aborts must predict what DDD calling an aborting HHH does
NOT AT ALL, NEVER HAS.
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
Yes, an unlimited simulation of an aborting HHH.
Prediction of behavior of unlimited emulation
means prediction of behavior that never aborts.
Right, but the unlimited emulation of the DDD that calls the HHH that says non-halting will reach a final state.
You are just proving that you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using, and don't care about the actual meaing, making you into a pathological liar.
…