Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/22/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Then they must follow the same rules (or you are lying that they are isomoprhic).On 8/22/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:Termination analyzers in software engineering areOn 8/22/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 8/22/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:>On 8/22/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Nope, Predict the ACTUAL behavior.On 8/22/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:>On 8/22/2024 8:21 AM, joes wrote:>Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 07:59:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 8/22/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 22.aug.2024 om 06:22 schreef olcott:>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
We swap the word "determines" for "predicts"
When we swap thew word "halt decider" for "termination analyzer" the
above is translated from computer science into software engineering.
The second half proves that this is the H that aborts that is making the
prediction of the behavior of D when emulated by a hypothetical version
of itself then never aborts.If IT didn’t abort DDD calling its aborting self.HHH is supposed to predict what the behavior of DDD would be if it didTHIS EXACTLY MATCHES THE SIPSER APPROVED CRITERIA The finite HHH(DDD)But that different hypothetical HHH is a non-input.
emulates itself emulating DDD exactly once and this is sufficient for
this HHH to predict what a different HHH(DDD) do that never aborted
its emulation of its input.
not abort its emulation of DDD that is what the words that Professor
agreed to mean.
>
I don't know how you twist words to get that.
HHH is required to predict the behavior of DDD
as if every HHH had its abort code removed.
But that isn't the input, so that is just a LIE.
PREDICT HYPOTHETICAL BEHAVIOR
>
You are just admitting you are lying about the
That is NOT what the words actually say.
I hope you don't get condemned to Hell over this.
>
Yes, it is, at least when you understand the TECHNICAL meaning of the words in Computation Theory.
isomorphic to partial halt deciders in computer
science you really can't get away with saying otherwise
and not look foolish.
Something you are just IGNORANT of.
>
Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidty by your instance of talking about something you haven't actually studied by just think you know.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.