Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Op 05.jul.2025 om 00:08 schreef olcott:Thus you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with dbushOn 7/4/2025 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Irrelevant, because HHH should report on its input.On 7/4/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:>https://claude.ai/share/48aab578-aec3-44a5-8bb3-6851e0f8b02e>
>
Since you LIE with the following statement;
>
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
>
Since there is no such pattern in the input, since its execution halts,
Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the
domain of every Turing machine partial halt decider,
thus DDD() does not contradict HHH(DDD)==0.
This input includes the abort code and specifies a halting program.*That is the part that is way over your head*
That is proven by direct execution of the same input, but there is no need for the HHH to know about the direct execution.*No it is not proof of failure*
The direct execution is only a proof of the failure of HHH.
-->since HHH DOES return 0 as you stipulated, this statement is just a lie of asserting the existance of a condition that doesn't exist.>
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.