Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/2/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:This eliminates the problem of you dishonestly removing contextOn 6/2/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:I have.On 6/2/24 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:>IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR THAT THE INPUT SPECIFIES.>
That you did get confused by the Linz text proves that you do
get confused. Previously it looked just like willful deception.
Which is, for a Halt Decider, exactly and only the behavior of the Turing Machine the input describes.
>
PERIOD.
>
Anything else is just a LIE.
>>>You don't seem to understand that you can't just "redefine" the system to meet your desires.>
>
Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS.
DD correctly simulated by HH specifies NON-HALTING.
No, Running DD(DD) and seeing that it will never, after an unbounded number of steps, indicate it is non-halting.
>
DEFINITION.
>>>
Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS.
DD correctly simulated by HH specifies NON-HALTING.
Right, and the input is a representation of a Turing Machine and its input, whose behavior the decider is to decide on.
>>>
Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS.
DD correctly simulated by HH specifies NON-HALTING.
>
And that is the machine the input describes.
>
ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST A LIE.
>You can't get away with implicitly saying that you>
just don't "believe in" UTMs.
I do, and a UTM is DEFINED as a machine that exactly reproduces the behavior of the machine described by its input.
>
*If that was true then you prove that this statement is false*
*We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt when*
*correctly simulated by every HH that can possibly exist*
You keep of forgetting that the phrase "DD cannot possibly halt" means,
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.