On 5/5/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:Computing the mapping does have 100% totally specific stepsOn 5/5/2025 9:27 PM, dbush wrote:A mapping doesn't *have* steps. It's simply an association between an input domain and an output domain.On 5/5/2025 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:>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.
>
Yes.
>
The mapping is well defined.
You don't even know that "well defined" means
that all of the steps have been specified.
Everyone here thinks that they can skip that and leap to
your conclusion.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
| Date | Sujet | # | Auteur | |
| 3 May 26 |  … |
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.