Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/16/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/16/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:On 8/16/2024 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/16/24 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/16/2024 10:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/16/24 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/16/2024 9:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/16/24 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
EMULATIONPREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITEDRight, unlimited emulation of the EXACT input that HHH got, thatBut that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES anNot at all. never has.
unlimited emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation
would be.
is the DDD that calls the HHH that is the decider
THISRight, and the input to the Halt Decider HHH is the DDD that calls
the Halt Decider HHH, not the DDD that calls the unlimited emulator
HHH.
Not even happening.You can't get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86
language.
See below:Which isn't a program, so doesn't HAVE a complete behavior per theIt is isomorphic to a program and to a Turing Machine.
semantics of the x86 language,
Unfortunately you must have misread.You need to include the code of HHH at 000015d2, and since that code,I have conclusively proved that it has been obviously doing this for
as you have provided it elsewhere DOES return to its caller when given
this input, shows that by the x86 semantics, DDD is a halting program.
three years.
THE INPUT TO HHH(DDD) CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS RETURN INSTRUCTION THUSThe input DDD does halt.
DOES NOT HALT.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.