Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 3/29/2025 2:46 PM, joes wrote:No, 2 + 3 has the fixed answer of 5Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:22:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 3/29/2025 2:06 PM, dbush wrote:No. The mapping *to*.On 3/29/2025 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:On 3/29/2025 10:23 AM, dbush wrote:On 3/29/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:On 3/28/2025 11:00 PM, dbush wrote:On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:>
It defines that it must compute the mapping from the direct
execution of a Turing Machine
>Which does not require tracing an actual running TM, only mapping>
properties of the TM described.
The key fact that you continue to dishonestly ignore is the concrete
counter-example that I provided that conclusively proves that the
finite string of machine code input is not always a valid proxy for
the behavior of the underlying virtual machine.No, it is a confirmation of the impossibility of a halt decider.In the same way that it is impossible to compute the
>
actual sum of 2 + 3 as 7.
and that behavior is, and only is, the behavior of the program described by the input when run.In other words, you deny the concept of a UTM, which can take a>
description of any Turing machine and exactly reproduce the behavior
of the direct execution.
I deny that a pathological relationship between a UTM and its input
can be correctly ignored.It isn't being ignored. You are saying the direct execution is wrong.I am saying that it is incorrect for a termination
>
analyzer to report on anything other than the behavior
that is specified by its actual inputs.
There goes universality.In such a case, the UTM will not halt, and neither will the input when>
executed directly.
It is not impossible to adapt a UTM such that it correctly simulates a
finite number of steps of an input.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.