Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/28/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-06-27 17:38:12 +0000, olcott said:On 6/27/2024 12:25 PM, joes wrote:Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:56:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
And in that input there is no question about whether itself halts.You are wrong. The input is the variable in the question. The questionThe input is the machine address of the finite string of x86 machine
is not a part of the input.
code.
And the question is not: Do I, the analyser, give the correct answer?The question is:The input is a specific finite string of bytes that has the semanticsFor a decider that is made for that sort of input. But there cannot be
of the x86 programming language.
any question in that input.
Does this finite string of machine code specify behavior that terminates
normally?
What do you even mean? Of course it follows its programming and does notNone-the-less no-one here understands that every halt decider is
only required to report on the behavior that its actual input
actually maps to.
That definition is not incorrect.Some definitions ARE incorrect.Instead everyone here expects that the halt decider must map to theThat is the definition of a halt decider. If it does not fit that
English description of what the authors of textbooks expect it to
map to.
definition, it is not one.
When I define Snitfinbangflizzledroop as the square-root ofThere is an obvious mapping from D to its behaviour: run it, or give it
misconceptions about the US constitution my definition is incorrect
because there is no mapping from the input of misconceptions about the
US constitution to any square-root value.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.