Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/4/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:No, it specifies that it HALTS, since HH(DD,DD) will return 0.On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:The machine description of DD specifies that it does not halt toOn 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:>On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:>https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf>
>
At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the above
link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH.
>
It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they
persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from
their face.
>
>
The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated Correctly" to allow the simulation to say anything about the behavior of the machine being simulated.
>
*I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link*
You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong.
>
*Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
*Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
*Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
What are you asking for a counter example of?
>
simulating halt decider HH and you already know that you cannot
possibly prove otherwise.
We can "define" that it does halt and that would be the same asNope, since the DEFINITON of what an input represents to a Halt Decider, is the behavior of the actual machine.
"defining" that all puppies are fifteen story office buildings,
inherently incorrect.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.