Sujet : Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.com (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 01. Jun 2024, 21:04:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3frb1$2o13h$11@i2pn2.org>
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 : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 10:51:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/1/2024 10:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:17 schreef olcott:
On 6/1/2024 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jun.2024 om 01:57 schreef 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:
>
Halting criteria are the same for all functions. If the direct
execution of HH(DD,DD) proves that HH halts, then the direct execution
of DD also proves that DD halts.
*HH is required to report on the behavior that its input specifies* HH
is not allowed to report on the behavior of DD(DD) {the computation that
itself is contained within}.
Which just happens to be the same as its input. So the containing
computations is just not allowed to occur?
-- joes
…