Sujet : Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---SUCCINCT
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 14. Nov 2024, 20:55:07
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <9807cd8f9a43d7c9e9f13c6f113276cfd5f20b97@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:22:36 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/14/2024 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/14/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/14/2024 12:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/14/24 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/14/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/14/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/14/2024 7:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/14/24 8:22 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/14/2024 2:56 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:11:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/13/2024 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-11-12 13:58:03 +0000, olcott said:
On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:
On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
HHH is required to abort the emulation of any input that would
otherwise result in its own non-termination. DDD is such an
input.
Does that mean that DDD doesn't halt?
No, HHH does what it does, and, to be a halt decider must
determine if the program described halts or not.
An emulating termination analyzer / simulating halt decider is
required to prevent its own non-termination.
It is also requied to CORRECTLY indicate what the program described
by its input will do when it is run.
HHH is required to report on
the behavior of HHH emulating itself emulating DDD because that <is>
what this input specifies.
No, it is required to report on the behavior of DDD, not HHH's
partial emulation of it.
An emulating termination analyzer / simulating halt decider is always
correct to reject any input as non-halting that must be aborted to
prevent its own non-termination.
But it only "Must be aborted" if the unbounded emulaiton of that exact
input doesn't halt.
*You are just reverting to weasel words*
What are weasel words?
When no HHH anywhere in the recursive emulation chain ever needs to
abort its input to prevent the non terminating behavior of the outermost
HHH then the input to HHH halts, otherwise the input to HHH is correctly
rejected as non-halting.
Why doesn't any HHH abort then?
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
…