Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:27:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 7/17/2024 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-07-16 18:24:49 +0000, olcott said:On 7/16/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-07-15 02:33:28 +0000, olcott said:On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:That string is meaningless outside of the execution environment of HHH,You have already said that a decider is not allowed to answerIt maps the finite string 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3 to
anything other than its input. Now you say that the the program at
15c3 is not a part of the input. Therefore a decider is not allowed
consider it even to the extent to decide whether it ever returns. But
without that knowledge it is not possible to determine whether DDD
halts.
>
non-halting behavior because this finite string calls HHH(DDD)
in recursive simulation.
specifically the simulation of DDD it is doing. It does not encode
anything, DDD does not have access to that address. That string
doesn't call anything, the program in HHH's memory space does.
Ceterum censeo that HHH halts.That mapping is not a part of the finite string and not a part of thedecider/input pairs <are> a key element of the specification.
problem specification.The finite string does not reveal what is the effect of callingA simulating termination analyzer proves this.
whatever that address happens to contain.
>The behaviour of HHH is specified outside of the input. Therefore yourHHH is not allowed to report on the behavior of it actual self in its
"decider" decides about a non-input, which you said is not allowed.
own directly executed process. HHH is allowed to report on the effect of
the behavior of the simulation of itself simulating DDD.
HHH must report on itself if its input calls it.Its input cannot call its actual self that exists
HHH does not directly simulate itself, it just executes.
It reports on DDD by simulating it.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.