Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/23/2025 1:55 AM, Mikko wrote:That is typical to USENET discussions. But you are free to stickOn 2025-06-22 16:28:47 +0000, olcott said:I stop at their first counter-factual mistake because
On 6/22/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:It seems that you can't understand what others write as a response.On 2025-06-21 15:49:30 +0000, olcott said:Most reviewers here don't even understand that halting
On 6/21/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:It is long but there is no evdence that it would be confusing. ThoseOn 2025-06-20 16:54:32 +0000, olcott said:That is too confusing for most of my reviewers.
On 6/19/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:If they are they should be called "simulating partial halt deciders".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:There has never been any HP proof that hasOn 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 beThe core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of thatAfter studying these things for 22 years I found that everyNonsense is not a fact.As you respond to my question without answering it it is obviousIt is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination
that you don't see any proofs in your article.
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.
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.
test case.
constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.
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.
a partial halt deciders.
is only defined as reaching a final halt state.
You never show any signs of understanding.
If others don't understand your writing as intended then your writing
is not clear enough. People who do not understand some detail often
ask for clarifications but you never clarify what is asked.
people here have a very hard time fully addressing one
single point.
They keep flitting back and forth over many different
points to permanently avoid fully addressing one single
point.
Every time anyone makes a provably counter-factualNo, it is not. A counter-factual hypothesis is a valid tool of
statement it is certain that they are not understanding.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.