Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:51:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:It took me two years to come up with these words please makeOn 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott:On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:Open question.Why do they get to lie?And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniatelyNot for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.
loop in the emulation.If the state doesn’t repeat infinitely often, it is not the same state>But not an *infinitely* repeating state.*This is the repeating state*If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flagWhy do you keep lying about this?Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, andNothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partialYou keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is
emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself
a fully correct emulator.
an incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>
As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.
or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition.
<- Which it therefore isn’t.
>
The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling author
of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing about
*infinitely* repeating state.
and does halt.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.