Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/1/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:It seems to me (and I may be wrong you may be confused)On 6/1/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:And unproven, and still meaningless.On 6/1/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/1/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/1/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:>On 6/1/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/1/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: >> DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive simulation>all the time it is simulated even when an infinite number of steps>
are simulated.
So, are you admitting that HH just gets stuck and doesn't answer when asked HH(DD,DD)?
>
Every DD correctly simulated by any HH remains stuck in recursive simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
So? Since you definition of "Correct Simulation" is non-canonical, that doesn't mean anything.
>
*When the "canonical" definition tries to get away with refuting this*
>
DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
number of steps of correct emulation.
No, it doesn't "Refute" that,
*Then what I said stands unrefuted*
*Then what I said stands unrefuted*
*Then what I said stands unrefuted*
>But why do we care about the fact that all your HH that answer just gave up on their simulation before the actual canonically correct simulation would have reached a final state,
*We can't move on to any other point until*
(a) You acknowledge that my above statement about the behavior of the
x86 machine code of DD is irrefutable and applies to the C source code version of DD and applies to the Linz proof.
>
(b) You correctly refute what I said above about the behavior of the
x86 machine code of DD.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.