Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/22/2025 3:50 AM, Mikko wrote:Right, we can prove the infinite loop won't halt, because we can correctly prove that the correct simulatio of it will not halt with only a partial simulation.On 2025-05-20 16:46:10 +0000, olcott said:*Here is Mike Terry Proving*
>On 5/20/2025 11:44 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:>On 20/05/2025 17:18, olcott wrote:>No one has actually made any rebuttal of my actual points.>
It's far from clear what your actual points are.
>
But I repeat myself.
>
Mike Terry Proves ---
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
That does not clarify what your actual points are.
>
You should answer all questions about you actual points with a
pointer to the paragraph on your web page where the answer is.
>
Re: Mike Terry Proves --- *RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW*
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
> is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
>
> First you should understand the basic idea behind a
> "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
> simulates its input, while observing each simulation
> step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
> in the simulation. A simple (working) example here
> is an input which goes into a tight loop.
(Mike says much more about this)
*Click here to get the whole article*
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
we can easily interpret that as saying exactly what I said a SHD
does above. It tells PO that in the tight loop example, H correctly
simulates as far as [A], at which point it correctly determines that
"its simulated input would never stop running unless aborted",
so it can decide "non-halting".
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.