Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 8/22/2024 12:30 PM, joes wrote:He agreed with the words. He did not agree with your non-standard meaningsAm Wed, 21 Aug 2024 20:55:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:He agreed to my own words that I spent two years carefully crafting.On 8/21/2024 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/21/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:On 8/21/2024 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 8/21/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:On 8/21/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-08-21 03:01:38 +0000, olcott said:What’s the contradiction?You are contradicting yourself.(d) This includes H simulating itself simulating DRight, H must CORRECTLY predict the behavior of an UNABORTED
emulation of its input, and if, and only if, it can determine that
such an emulation would never halt, then it can abort its emulation.
Note, that is the emulation of this exact input, including D calling
the ORIGINAL H, not changing to the Hypothetical, since by the rules
of the field, the input is a fixed string, and fully defines the
behavior of the input.
On the contrary, we are talking in circles.I have been over this same point again and again and again and yourYour ADD may prevent you from concentrating well enough to see this.I was right, you couldn't name it so you are just admiting that you are
a liar trying to create an ad hominem attack that failed.
"rebuttal" is changing the subject or calling me stupid.
Professor Sipser clearly agreed that an H that does a finite simulationIf the simulator *itself* would not abort. The H called by D is,
of D is to predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation of D.
by construction, the same and *does* abort.
Ben saw this right away and it seems that most everyone else simply liedI don’t think you understood him.
about it.
I know what my own words mean.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.