Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2025-06-18 16:05:33 +0000, olcott said:Simulating termination analyzer are equivalent to
On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:Of course a proof of the halting problem does not define anythingAm Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository.Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even be>>>As you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious>
that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination
analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H derives.
The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot
possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every
conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual
input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial
halt decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of that
test case.
>
constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.
There has never been any HP proof that has
ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
whatever value that this termination analyzer
determines.
for a termination alayzer. Termination anlyzers are not a relevant
for any proof (or other discussion) about the halting problem.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.