Sujet : Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 08. Mar 2025, 10:20:20
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <81273de8501f33cd4de34d7ff17150455e254325@i2pn2.org>
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 27 28 29
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Fri, 07 Mar 2025 20:53:51 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 3/7/2025 8:44 PM, dbush wrote:
On 3/7/2025 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/7/2025 8:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>
We know termination analyzers don't exist because no algorithm exists
that maps the halting function:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
directly
Yes I did grossly over-estimate you technical knowledge.
Are you a mere troll then?
That you don't understand that termination analyzers and halt deciders
are stipulated to map the halting function is not a rebuttal.
In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which
attempts attempts attempts attempts attempts to determine whether the
evaluation of a given program halts for each input.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
I switched to the term {termination analyzer} because they are not
required to be infallible.
infallible or wrong is a stupid dichotomy.
AHA HAHAHA
End of discussion then.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
…