Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/14/2025 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:If that was actually true then you could provide anOn 5/14/2025 2:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:And *yet again* you lie by implying Sipser agrees with your interpretation of the above when definitive proof has been repeatedly provided that he did not:On 14/05/2025 18:50, Mike Terry wrote:>On 14/05/2025 08:11, vallor wrote:Hmm, I thought some more about this. What's considered a bug (rather than e.g. a design error) is entirely dependent on the program's specification.Spent a couple of hours reading back the last few days of posts. Huboy,>
what a train wreck. (But like a train wreck, it's hard to look
away, which might explain how this has been going on for 20(?) years.)
>
I want to thank both Richard's, wij, dbush, Mike, Keith, Fred,
Mikko, and anybody else I've forgotten for trying to explain to
Mr. Olcott and Mr. Flibble how you all see their claims. I wanted to
point out three things:
>
a) Mr. Olcott claims his HHH simulator detects an non-terminating
input and halts. But others (I forget who) report that -- due
to a bug -- D would actually terminate on its own. His HHH
simulator therefore gives the wrong answer.
Not really due to a bug. D actually /does/ terminate on its own, and that's a consequence of PO's intended design. (Yes, there are bugs, but D's coding is what PO intended.)
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
<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
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.