Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/30/2024 4:11 AM, joes wrote:But represents one, and thus we can determine the actual behavior of that Turing Machine so desceribed.Am Wed, 29 May 2024 22:48:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:*Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:When the category is examined all at once then there is no needSo, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input?
to look at each individual element.Checks out.I have an OCD/Aspergers degree of single-minded focus.*Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*Nope.
∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions*
∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>
When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders
get the correct answer.
>
*Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization*
∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines*
∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>
You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem.
>
>*A deciders compute the mapping*Poetic.
FROM ITS INPUTS
*to it own accept or reject state*
>
*Deciders cannot take*
ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS
>
*Deciders can only take*
FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS
What is an „actual Turing machine”?
>
∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions
∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
Every H is an actual Turing_Machine
Every x is a Turing_Machine_Description
thus not an actual Turing_Machine
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.