Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2024-07-30 14:16:20 +0000, olcott said:Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
On 7/30/2024 1:37 AM, Mikko wrote:Which dictionary (or other authority) disagrees?On 2024-07-29 16:16:13 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 7/28/2024 3:02 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-07-27 14:08:10 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 7/27/2024 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-07-26 14:08:11 +0000, olcott said:>
>When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩>
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
The above is merely simplified syntax for the top of page 3
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
The above is the whole original Linz proof.
And even more simplified semantics.
>(a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩>
(b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(g) goto (d) with one more level of simulation
>
You are supposed to evaluate the above as a contiguous
sequence of moves such that non-halting behavior is
identified.
The above is an obvious tight loop of (d), (e), (f), and (g).
Its relevance (it any) to the topic of the discussion is not
obvious.
>
When we compute the mapping from the input to embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
to the behavior specified by this input we know that embedded_H
is correct to transition to Ĥ.qn.
The meaning of "correct" in this context is that if the transition of
embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to Ĥ.qn is correct if H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn but
incorrect otherwise.
No you are wrong.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.