Sujet : Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort
De : news (at) *nospam* immibis.com (immibis)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 24. Mar 2024, 04:34:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <uto3fp$8h3$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:
On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:
On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
(b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
(ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
>
To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>
To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
>
That would entail that
>
Tough shit. That is the requirement.
I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.
You proved that the requirement is not actually the requirement?
…