Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie?
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.com (joes)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 25. Jun 2024, 11:14:53
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v5e1qd$11urb$3@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sun, 23 Jun 2024 20:36:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/23/2024 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/23/24 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/23/24 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2024 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/23/24 8:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2024 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/23/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/23/2024 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/23/24 6:45 PM, olcott wrote:
I will not try any prove that 2 + 3 = 5, if you deny it then you are a
liar.
And you don't need to, as it has been done.
Now, showing how 2 + 3 = 5 would help show you how to write an actual
proof.
And, P(P) Halts since you have indicated that H(P,P) to returns 0.
So it doesn't need to be aborted.
The actual verified fact is that when P is correctly emulated by H
according to the semantics of the x86 language that the call from P to
H(P,P) CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN.
So H is not a decider anymore?
-- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
…