Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 6/2/24 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:*If that was true then you prove that this statement is false*IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR THAT THE INPUT SPECIFIES.Which is, for a Halt Decider, exactly and only the behavior of the Turing Machine the input describes.
That you did get confused by the Linz text proves that you do
get confused. Previously it looked just like willful deception.
PERIOD.
Anything else is just a LIE.
>No, Running DD(DD) and seeing that it will never, after an unbounded number of steps, indicate it is non-halting.You don't seem to understand that you can't just "redefine" the system to meet your desires.>
>
Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS.
DD correctly simulated by HH specifies NON-HALTING.
DEFINITION.
>Right, and the input is a representation of a Turing Machine and its input, whose behavior the decider is to decide on.
Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS.
DD correctly simulated by HH specifies NON-HALTING.
>And that is the machine the input describes.
Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS.
DD correctly simulated by HH specifies NON-HALTING.
>
ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST A LIE.
You can't get away with implicitly saying that youI do, and a UTM is DEFINED as a machine that exactly reproduces the behavior of the machine described by its input.
just don't "believe in" UTMs.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.