Sujet : Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.com (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 01. Jun 2024, 21:02:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3fr8b$2o13h$10@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 10:44:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/1/2024 10:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:09 schreef olcott:
On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said:
>
>
Similarly:
Because HH correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive
simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation this conclusively
proves that it is correct to reject HH as non-halting no matter what
the behavior of the directly executed HH(DD,DD) is.
I am going to simply ignore your disingenuous replies.
HH(DD,DD) halts as an empirical fact.
That means it returns, right? Making D proceed past line 4.
-- joes
…