Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 4/30/2024 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:That does not work. If you want to use the term "abnormal termination"On 2024-04-29 14:20:20 +0000, olcott said:Since the notion of abnormal termination could not exist prior
On 4/29/2024 8:44 AM, Mikko wrote:The word "you" in the question did not refer to me, so I didn't answer,On 2024-04-28 18:52:06 +0000, olcott said:Wrong answer.
On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:The simplest way to define halting is (s): neither. Instead, it meansOn 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:Yet again only rhetoric wit no actual reasoning.On 4/28/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:And that shows your STUPIDITY, not an error in the Theory.On 4/28/24 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:Even the term "halting" is problematic.On 4/28/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:So? Since formal logic isn't based on Linguistics, it doesn't directly impact it. IT might limit the forms weOn 4/28/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:Linguistic determinism is the concept that language and its structuresOn 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is to use the standard terminology, and start with what people will accept and move to what is harder to understand.On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:The only way to get people to understand that I am correctOn 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:You admit that people see that as being a claim about the Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the terms apply.On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider.On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said:D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H.
Can D simulated by H terminate normally?One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as
"simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more
about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more
about the properties of H than about the properties of D.
Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly
reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does.
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion
that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single
detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time.
People have no obligation to work in the direction you want them to.
Yes, when you speak non-sense, people will ignore you, because what you speak is non-sense.
You are just proving that you don't understand how to perform logic, or frame a persuasive arguement.
That fact that as far as we can tell, your "logic" is based on you making up things and trying to form justifications for them, just makes people unwilling to attempt to "accept" your wild ideas to see what might make sense.
limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought
processes such as categorization, memory, and perception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism
Some of the technical "terms of the art" box people into misconceptionsBut you seem to miss that Halting isn't a "Computable Function", as Turing Proved.
for which there is no escape. Some of the technical "terms of the art"
I perfectly agree with.
*Important technical "term of the art" that I totally agree with*
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
For 15 years I thought it means stops running for any reason.
Now I know that it means reaches the final state. Half theNo, I suspect most of the people here are smarter than that.
people here may not know that.
Do you believe:
(a) Halting means stopping for any reason.
(b) Halting means reaching a final state.
(c) Neither.
that it is not possible to continue the computation to an infinite
number of steps.
just commented.
computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state” (Linz:1990:234)That, together with other definitions by Linz, means exactly the same
[5] Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)
as the definition I proposed.
to my creation of a simulating halt decider and does exist within this
frame-of-reference we must construe abnormal termination as not halting.
If we don't do this we end up with actual infinite loops that halt.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.