Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 7/7/2025 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:Better than someone who is too stupid to understand the textbooks that DEFINE the system, ahd thus you just prove your ignorance.On 2025-07-07 03:12:30 +0000, olcott said:To people that never had any actual understanding and
>On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:>On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 7/6/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:>>>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
*EVERY BOT FIGURES THIS OUT ON ITS OWN*
No, it just isn't smart enough to detect that you lied in your premise.
>There is no way that DDD simulated by HHH (according>
to the semantics of the C programming language)
can possibly reach its own "return" statement final
halt state.
And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input and return an answer
>
You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated
until non-existent completion is especially nuts because
you have been told about this dozens of times.
>
What the F is wrong with you?
>
It seems you don't understand those words.
>
I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to completion, but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE that if this exact input WAS given to a correct simultor (which won't be itself, since it isn't doing the complete simulation) will run for an unbounded number of steps.
No decider is ever allowed to report on anything
besides the actual behavior that its input actually
specifies.
Unless you can quote some respectable author your prohibitions are
meaningless.
>
can only parrot textbooks. They need to see this things
in other textbooks.
It is common knowledge that Turing Machine Halt DecidersRight, but since it is an "Encoding of a Turing Machine", the behavor of that machine is fair game to ask about.
can only take finite string encodings of Turing Machines
as inputs. Thus anything that it not a finite string is
outside of the domain of Turing Machine Halt Deciders.
People have always know the first sentence of that andIt seems you don't understand what you can do with encodings.
never bothered to derive the second sentence from the first.
But why did you need to channge H into embedded_H?Outside of the domain is a more precise way of saying it.Most people here don't get that because they have no>
actual depth of understanding. They can only parrot
the words of textbooks.
Do you even understand what the word "allowed" means?
>
*From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this*
https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H reaches
its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by Ĥ.embedded_H cannot possibly
reach its simulated final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.