Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 3/29/2025 4:31 AM, joes wrote:No, it is not. The expression "the behaviour of the input" is a bitAm Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:27:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 3/28/2025 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:On 3/28/2025 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:On 3/28/2025 1:12 PM, dbush wrote:On 3/28/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:On 3/27/2025 9:33 PM, dbush wrote:On 3/27/2025 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:On 3/27/2025 8:24 PM, dbush wrote:On 3/27/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:On 3/27/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:On 3/27/2025 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:According to what? WE require it. YOU are answering a different question.I HAVE PROVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS WRONG NITWIT.Irrelevant, because to satisfy the requirements, the behavior ofGood, because that's all that's required for a solution to theThere are sometimes when the behavior of TM Description D
halting problem:
correctly simulated by UTM1 does not match the behavior correctly
simulated by UTM2.
the described machine when executed directly must be reported.
Quit that.Category error.It is 100% impossible for any TM to take another executing TM as its
I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt
when executed directly.
input.
But it can take a complete description of a TM thatIs not always a perfect proxy for the behavior of the direct execution
of the underlying machine.Uh yes it is.That my proof that I am correct
is over your head is less than
no rebuttal what-so-ever.
The behavior OF THE INPUT is specified by THIS INPUTI have proven this hundreds and hundreds of times over several years.Simulation by the called simulator is not direct execution.
PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE CANNOT SIMPLY BE IGNORED. IT IS EITHER
MORONIC OR DISHONEST TO DO SO.
being emulated by HHH according to the semantics of
the x86 language.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.