Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2024-09-03 13:17:56 +0000, olcott said:They do yet I cannot provide every single details of
On 9/3/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:If it were isnomorphic the same false assumtipns would apply to both.On 2024-09-02 16:06:11 +0000, olcott said:>
>A correct halt decider is a Turing machine T with one accept state and one reject state such that:>
>
If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding of Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution of a real machine X with initial tape contents Y eventually halts, the execution of T eventually ends up in the accept state and then stops.
>
If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding of Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution of a real machine X with initial tape contents Y does not eventually halt, the execution of T eventually ends up in the reject state and then stops.
Your "definition" fails to specify "encoding". There is no standard
encoding of Turing machines and tape contents.
That is why I made the isomorphic x86utm system.
By failing to have such a concrete system all kinds
of false assumptions cannot be refuted.
Is is about the behavior that this string specifies.The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH** <is> differentThe halting problem is not about a string but about a behaviour.
than the behavior of the directly executed DDD**
**according to the semantics of the x86 language
Your decider is not a halt decider if it answers about another--
behaviour.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.