Sujet : Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 02. Jun 2024, 11:28:14
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v3hdvf$39nv5$4@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 01.jun.2024 om 21:58 schreef olcott:
On 6/1/2024 2:02 PM, joes wrote:
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.
>
HH(DD,DD) halts
DD correctly simulated by HH DOES NOT HAL >
I can say it 10,000 more times and it never changes
it remains a verified fact.
DD(DD) halts.
HH correctly simulated by HH DOES NOT HALT
I can say it 10,000 more times and it never changes
it remains a verified fact.
…