Sujet : Re: Liar detector: Fred, Richard, Joes and Alan --- Ben's agreement
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. Jul 2024, 15:21:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v75vl9$19j7l$7@dont-email.me>
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 27 28 29 30 31
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/16/2024 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-15 12:55:21 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/15/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-14 14:15:45 +0000, olcott said:
>
*You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
*comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>
No, it is false. What the input specifies is a property of the input alone.
Whether some HHH is able to process it without looping forever is not a
property of the input and not relevant to the meaning of the input.
>
In other words you believe that you can correctly
ignore the verified fact that DDD correctly emulated
by HHH does call HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation.
It is not a fact and not verified but otherwise, yes, that is not relevant.
When simulated input DDD stops running {if and only if}
the simulation of this input DDD has been aborted this
necessitates that input DDD specifies non-halting behavior
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…