Sujet : Re: Because Olcott has made this error 500 times in the last three years...
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 26. Jul 2024, 20:16:31
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <e9adb67f6a65bbf1a3a89e7f58f67c073bcfd52f@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:02:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/26/2024 10:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.jul.2024 om 16:16 schreef olcott:
On 7/26/2024 8:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.jul.2024 om 15:22 schreef olcott:
On 7/26/2024 1:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.jul.2024 om 03:49 schreef olcott:
We understand it perfectly. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself
correctly.
The non-halting behaviour is only in your dreams. It is irrelevant,
because HHH halts when it aborts. Remember, HHH is simulating
*itself*, a halting program, not another non-halting simulator that
does not abort and does not halt.
We see that the only thing DDD does is calling HHH. So, HHH is fully
accountable for the behaviour of DDD and its code is included in the
program that must be simulated, otherwise the call from DDD to HHH
would result in an error.
No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that
itself is contained within.
HHH(DDD) is accountable for the behavior of its input and is not
accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained
within: the directly executed DDD();
And those happen to be the same.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
Because I have repeated this same point 500 times in the last three years...
Re: Because Olcott has made this error 500 times in the last three years...