Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 7/8/2025 6:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/7/25 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/7/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/7/25 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/7/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/7/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/7/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott: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:Ah, but your HHH does report on a *hypothetical* input that wouldn'tNo decider is ever allowed to report on anything besides theIt seems you don't understand those words.And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its inputYou insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated until
and return an answer
>
non-existent completion is especially nuts because you have
been told about this dozens of times.
What the F is wrong with you?
>
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.
>
actual behavior that its input actually specifies.
call the aborting simulator HHH, but instead a *different* (possibly
similar) simulator that would *not* abort.
>Really, so how does that code NOT aboft its simulation of DDD?"No, that code proves that HHH, as defined,How is it "Counter-Factual"?That is counter-factual and you would know this if you had good C++No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts itsAnd HHH does not do that. The input specifies a halting program,>
because it includes the abort code. But HHH gives up before it
reaches that part of the specification and the final halt state.
I have corrected you on this too many times.
You have sufficiently proven that you are dishonest or
incompetent.
*This code proves that you are wrong*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c That you
are too F-ing stupid to see this is less than no rebuttal at all.
>
simulation of DDD and returns 0,
skills.
>
It is YOU that is just counter-factual.
>
always aborts its simulation of DDD"
That is a false statement. If you understood the code you would know
your error.
>
You have a reading comprehension problem.
When critique words you are strictly not allowed to change even a single
word without being dishonest.
"No, that code proves that HHH as defined
always aborts its simulation of DDD"
If you can't figure how how that is false we have conclusively proved
your lack of sufficient technical competence.
Wow. Can't you just answer the question?I made a statement that another word-for-word statement
Also, "we" and "proved"? NotIf you could understand the code you would know
being understood isn't very convincing. So how does HHH not abort?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.