Sujet : Re: Position Paper: Why Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) Require a Reframing of the Halting Problem
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 25. May 2025, 09:15:55
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <100ujjr$19e50$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2025-05-24 18:19:54 +0000, olcott said:
Proving that the rules have always been incoherent nonsense
does seem to refute them.
To say anything about refuting any rules is a category error.
The word "refute" means to show that a claim is false. Rules
are not claims and therefore not false.
That you call something "incoherent nonsense" is more likely
a consequense of your defective understanding.
-- Mikko
Re: Position Paper: Why Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) Require a Reframing of the Halting Problem
Re: Position Paper: Why Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) Require a Reframing of the Halting Problem