Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/14/25 12:26 AM, olcott wrote:The spec never requires that either H or D be a program.On 5/12/2025 1:20 PM, dbush wrote:No, YOU are the one that has been dishonest, and have so admitted it, just using words you don't understand what they meant.On 5/12/2025 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:>Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition>
by Michael Sipser (Author)
4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael- Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
>
DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
that this criteria has been met:
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
>
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
Which is not what you thought he agreed to:
>
>
>
>
People tried for more than a year to get away with
saying the DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until
I stipulated that DDD is emulated by HHH according to
the rules of the x86 language. Then they shut up about
this.
>
People tried to get away with saying that HHH
cannot not decide halting on the basis of
*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
>
People tried to get away with saying that the correct
emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
*H correctly simulates its input D until*
>
*My reviewers have been dishonest about all of these things*
>
Since your HHH and DDD are not program,
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.