Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/7/2024 1:02 PM, joes wrote:But it doesn't, as a correct simulation of a DDD that calls an HHH that returns will stop running, and thus HHH can never correctly determine something that doesn't happen, so it is never correct to abort its emulation.Am Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:54:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:void DDD()On 8/7/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said:It doesn't change anything about DDD. HHH was supposed to decide anythingI know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not meanIn other words when DDD is defined to have a pathological relationship
what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that "DDD
emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it does not.
DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not.
>
to HHH we can just close our eyes and ignore it and pretend that it
doesn't exist?
and can't fulfill that promise. That doesn't mean that DDD is somehow
faulty, it's just a counterexample.
>
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
*HHH is required to report on the behavior of DDD*
Anyone that does not understand that HHH meets this criteria
has insufficient understanding.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>Nope, YOU don't know the C language, or Logic, or what Truth is, or it seems ANYTHING you talk about.
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
I can't imagine that any expert in the C language can say
that HHH does not meet this criteria without lying. All
four of them that answered agreed that it does. Two of
these four have MSCS.
If most everyone here hardly knows C at all that would
be quite a shock to me.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.