Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 20. Feb 2025, 11:00:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <8fa176d46bf5b8c36def9e32ced67a1a3f81bae1@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:08:05 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>
Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
article before or when HHH
That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
talking about in this forum for several years.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about
that paper.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
contains a false claim.
It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
possibly show otherwise.
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a
truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some
knowledge that is not obvious.
When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is
false I will point out the error.
We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
Since when DD run, it halts,
THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
Yes, please shut up.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally
misleading people into believing that the recursive chain terminates
normally.
How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input could
possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
Not even the variable Root in line 502 of Halt7.c?

--
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.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Apr 26 o  …

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal