Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 4/2/2025 8:52 AM, joes wrote:Changes the input.Am Tue, 01 Apr 2025 21:37:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:By process of elimination and by the above criteriaOn 4/1/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 4/1/25 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:On 4/1/2025 5:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 3/31/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:*finiteYou already admitted that you are lying about this.Right, the DDD who's simulation is stopped hasn't shown non-haltingBut DDD doesn't prevent its own terminatation, as it calls an HHHYou know that DDD stopping running and DDD reaching its final halt
that WILL abort its emulation and return and answer.
>
state are not the same thing you damned liar.
>
behavior, just not-yet-halted.
>
DDD emulated by HHH for an infinite number of steps never reaches its
final halt state.
>HHH sees this in one recursive emulation of DDD.It must also return the right value.
>
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop
simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own
termination. The only rebuttal to this is rejecting the notion that
deciders must always halt.
>
we can determine that not stopping the emulation
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.