Sujet : Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 01. Jun 2024, 20:45:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v3fq8q$2teib$2@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 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/1/2024 1:41 PM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 31 May 2024 18:57:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/31/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/24 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/30/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>
*If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
*final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*
Which makes HH not terminate either, or incorrectly abort.
I will not respond to any of your replies while you continue to play
head games.
*Changing the subject away from this is construed as a head game*
DD correctly simulated by pure function HH cannot possibly reach
past its own line 03 in any finite number of steps of correct
simulation.
In case you didn't know pure functions must halt because they must
return a value.
*When we get as specific as the actual x86 machine code of*
*DD then all liars are exposed*
The machine code doesn't matter. Did you know that implementations can be wrong,
i.e. not meet their spec?
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…