Sujet : Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. Aug 2024, 15:59:23
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <34a22fd138e2e1e41a4dd29cd6c9016064e2343c@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 26
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
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 -
halting. It's fine if it aborts, as long as it gives the correct result.
-- 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.
…