Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2024-09-05 13:39:14 +0000, olcott said:I must begin where people are so far no one even understands
On 9/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:Your recent presentations are so far from Linz' proof that theyOn 2024-09-03 13:17:56 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 9/3/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:>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.
If it were isnomorphic the same false assumtipns would apply to both.
They do yet I cannot provide every single details of
the source-code of the Turing machine because these
details would be too overwhelming.
>
So instead every author makes a false assumption that
is simply believed to be true with no sufficient basis
to show that it isn't true.
>
Once I prove my point as the x86 level I show how the
same thing applies to the Peter Linz proof.
look totally unrelated.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.