Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/9/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:Yes it is. If it were not you would have pointed where there is anOn 2025-06-09 02:50:59 +0000, olcott said:That is not quite the way that it actually works.
void DDD()Being called a "liar" by a liar does not damn.
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
As is clear from the above C code, DDD() specifies what HHH specifies
for the case it is called with DDD as the only argument. In particular,
if HHH specifies a recursive for that case then so does DDD. And if
HHH specifies a recursive simulation that can never reach its final
halt state then so does DDD. And if HHH specifies a non-halting
behaviour so does DDD. Etc.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>A counterfactual hypothesis is not a valid substitute of the actual
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>
DDD emulated by HHH, the directly executed DDD()
and the directly executed HHH() would never stop
running unless HHH aborts its simulation of DDD.
*According to the above criteria that means*No, it does not, as HHH did not correctly determine that the rest
When DDD does abort its simulation of DDD then
HHH correctly reports that its input specifies
a non-halting sequence of configurations.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.