Sujet : Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. Aug 2024, 16:45:29
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v9ns6p$1fvsr$1@dont-email.me>
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 : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/16/2024 10:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 9:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>
>
I must go one step at a time.
>
That's reasonable in a discussion. The one thing you were discussing
above is what is the meaning of the output of HHH. Its OK to stay
at that step until we are sure it is understood.
>
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH
can reach the "return" instruction of DDD it is
construed that this instance of DDD never halts.
>
But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an unlimited emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
>
>
Not at all. never has.
HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited
simulation would be.
>
>
Right, unlimited emulation of the EXACT input that HHH got, that is the DDD that calls the HHH that is the decider
>
>
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
>
So, I guess you aren't working on the Halting Problem,
Halt deciders have always been required to predict what the
behavior of their input would be.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…