Sujet : Re: Flibble’s Leap: Why Behavioral Divergence Implies a Type Distinction in the Halting Problem
De : rjh (at) *nospam* cpax.org.uk (Richard Heathfield)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. May 2025, 17:13:13
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Fix this later
Message-ID : <vvqiap$g8ck$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/05/2025 16:56, olcott wrote:
The directly executed DD() simply halts because
HHH has stopped the infinite recursion that it
specifies on its second recursive call.
DD "simply halts".
DD emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
x86 language cannot possibly halt. Because all deciders
are required to report on what their finite string input
specifies HHH must reject DD as non-halting.
DD "cannot possibly halt".
Undecidability, thy name is DD.
-- Richard HeathfieldEmail: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999Sig line 4 vacant - apply within