Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/16/2025 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:No, there are peole who do know C but don't know that HHH is notOn 2025-05-16 01:21:04 +0000, olcott said:void DDD()
On 5/15/2025 6:57 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Otherwise true but the "correctly" is not verified.On 16/05/2025 00:43, olcott wrote:<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Or maybe he just knows what 'if' means.On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:In other words you believe that professor SipserI overcome the proof of undecidability of the HaltingNope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
Problem in that the code that
"does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns"
becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.
screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.
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
It is a verified fact that HHH does simulate DD according
to the rules of the x86 language, thus correctly
until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DD
would never stop running unless aborted
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
Anyone that knows C can tell that when HHH does simulate
DDD correctly that it keeps getting deeper in recursive
simulation until aborted or OOM error.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.