Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/1/2024 4:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:In other words, it is a TOY.olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:When you say that I have not defined them at all you are ignoring theOn 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 4/30/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
[ .... ]
>>Since the notion of abnormal termination could not exist prior 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.>Except that Turing Machine do not have a concept of "Abnormal
Termination",
Indeed, not.
>They do now, otherwise simulating termination analyzers are defined>
to report that infinite loops always halt because they abort their
simulation of this infinite loop to report not halting.
Balderdash. "Simulating termination analyzers" aren't defined at all.
Until we have some definition of them, it is impossible to discuss their
properties sensibly.
>
10,000 times that I have defined them in this forum.
It is a termination analyzer thus is not required to be infalliblyAny simulated input that does not need to be aborted to prevent>
its own infinite execution is an input that terminates normally.
This counts as halting.
Except that without a functioning halting decider, it is impossible to
know whether a simulated input "needs to be aborted" or not. We know
there are no functioning halting deciders.
>
correct on every possible input. It must get at least one input
correctly.
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 3 evenWRONG. see my other post.
in an infinite number of simulated steps.
No, because the Turing Machine, in an infinite loop, doesn't terminate abnormally.If we take your definition then all infinite loops halt thereforeAll inputs that must be aborted terminate abnormally, thus does>
not count as halting.
I have shown, in the last two days, that "terminating abnormally",
whatever that might mean in a turing machine, is indeed halting. You
chose not to respond to those parts of my posts.
>
you are wrong.
Right, not even abnormally.You don't even understand that no infinite loop halts.>you are just showing that your system isn't actually the
equivlent to the Turing Problem.
>yes, we can define that some "final states" are to be considered
"abnormal terminations" and some "Normal Termination", but that
doesn't change the nature of the problem.*The step that corrects the error of the halting problem comes last*>-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius>
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.