Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/5/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:So you're assuming an algorithm exists that can compute the below mapping.On 5/5/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:Computing the mapping does > have 100% totally specific stepsOn 5/5/2025 9:27 PM, dbush wrote:>On 5/5/2025 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/5/2025 8:59 PM, dbush wrote:>On 5/5/2025 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/5/2025 7:49 PM, dbush wrote:>>>
Which starts with the assumption that an algorithm exists that performs the following mapping:
>
>
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
>
(<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
>
>
>DO COMPUTE THAT THE INPUT IS NON-HALTING>
IFF (if and only if) the mapping FROM INPUTS
IS COMPUTED.
i.e. it is found to map something other than the above function which is a contradiction.
>
The above function VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE.
You make no attempt to show how my claim
THAT IT VIOLATES COMPUTER SCIENCE IS INCORRECT
you simply take that same quote from a computer
science textbook as the infallible word-of-God.
All you are doing is showing that you don't understand proof by contradiction,
Not at all.
>
Yes.
>
The mapping is well defined.
You don't even know that "well defined" means
that all of the steps have been specified.
A mapping doesn't *have* steps. It's simply an association between an input domain and an output domain.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.