Sujet : Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 06. May 2025, 03:18:18
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vvbrha$1us1f$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 26 27 28 29 30
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/5/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/5/2025 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/5/2025 7:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>
Which starts with the assumption that an algorithm exists that performs the following mapping:
>
>
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
>
>
>
DO COMPUTE THAT THE INPUT IS NON-HALTING
IFF (if and only if) the mapping FROM INPUTS
IS COMPUTED.
>
i.e. it is found to map something other than the above function which is a contradiction.
>
>
The above function VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE.
You make no attempt to show how my claim
THAT IT VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE IS INCORRECT
you simply take that same quote from a computer
science textbook as the infallible word-of-God.
All you are doing is showing that you don't understand proof by contradiction,
Not at all. The COMPUTER SCIENCE of your requirements IS WRONG!
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
| Date | Sujet | # | | Auteur |
| 3 May 26 | … | | | |
Haut de la page
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.
NewsPortal