Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/29/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:No, but infinite loops that always halt would be useful for manyOn 2024-08-28 12:46:42 +0000, olcott said:A halt decider that always ignores its input and reports
On 8/28/2024 7:34 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:I would consider the infinite loops that always halt a more useful result.Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:07 schreef olcott:HHH simulates DDD until it has inductive evidence thatOn 8/28/2024 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:No, apparently, your understanding of logic English is very poor.Op 27.aug.2024 om 15:32 schreef olcott:*THIS IS YOUR REASONING*<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>And since DDD is calling an HHH that is programmed to detect the 'special condition', so that it aborts and halts, DDD halts as well and
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
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
HHH is only required to correctly predict whether or not DDD
*would never stop running unless aborted*
If you are hungry and never eat you will remain hungry.
You are hungry and eat becoming no longer hungry.
*This proves that you never needed to eat*
in the purely hypothetical case where a different HHH
would never abort its emulation of DDD that DDD would
never terminate normally.
If we don't do it this way then infinite loops always halt.
halting is more useful?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.