Sujet : Re: Halting Problem: How my refutation differs to Peter Olcott's
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 12. May 2025, 16:51:21
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vvt5dp$14pca$11@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/12/2025 9:38 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:32, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-11 11:52:05 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>
On Sun, 11 May 2025 11:49:50 +0000, joes wrote:
<snip>
No. HHH has a string representation, like every program.
>
No. Conflating a program with a string representation of the same program
in the manner of a self-referential dependency is a category (type) error.
>
There are several meanings for the word "program" but a common one is a
string that specifies what shall happen when the program is executed.
One possible string representation of that string is the string itself.
>
>
A better name is computational unit.
That's a terrible name. But okay, if you think it's better, who is anyone here to stop you using it? Just don't expect me to.
What other name encompasses
(a) subroutines
(b) programs
(c) integrated systems comprised of many programs
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: Halting Problem: How my refutation differs to Peter Olcott's
Re: Halting Problem: How my refutation differs to Peter Olcott's
