Sujet : Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. Aug 2024, 20:31:32
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v9o9ek$1hmvf$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 16.aug.2024 om 16:42 schreef olcott:
On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>
>
I must go one step at a time.
>
That's reasonable in a discussion. The one thing you were discussing
above is what is the meaning of the output of HHH. Its OK to stay
at that step until we are sure it is understood.
>
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH
can reach the "return" instruction of DDD it is
construed that this instance of DDD never halts.
>
But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an unlimited emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
>
Not at all. never has.
HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited
simulation would be.
Yes, and when HHH that aborts simulates *itself* it must predict what the behaviour of an unlimited simulation of the HHH that aborts would be.
But we know you are cheating with the Root variable, which causes that the simulating HHH and the simulated HHH have different behaviour.
…