Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/6/25 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>On 5/6/2025 5:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Right, "Computed by a model of computation", thatOn 5/5/25 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/5/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote:>On 5/5/2025 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/5/2025 7:49 PM, dbush wrote:>>>
Which starts with the assumption that an algorithm exists that performs the following mapping:
>
>
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
>
>
>DO COMPUTE THAT THE INPUT IS NON-HALTING>
IFF (if and only if) the mapping FROM INPUTS
IS COMPUTED.
i.e. it is found to map something other than the above function which is a contradiction.
>
The above function VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE.
You make no attempt to show how my claim
THAT IT VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE IS INCORRECT
you simply take that same quote from a computer
science textbook as the infallible word-of-God.
All you are doing is showing that you don't understand proof by contradiction,
Not at all. The COMPUTER SCIENCE of your requirements IS WRONG!
>
No, YOU don't understand what Computer Science actually is talking about.
>
Every function computed by a model of computation
must apply a specific sequence of steps that are
specified by the model to the actual finite string
input.
>Right, which is doesn't do.
HHH(DD) must emulate DD according to the rules
of the x86 language.
Remember, your HHH stop processing at a CALL HHH instruction.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.