On Sat, 10 May 2025 08:50:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:WHy should I? Do the literature search yourself, that or pay for someone to do it.
On 5/10/25 12:04 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:Prove it.On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:18:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:>
>On 5/9/25 9:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:>The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and hisIf he was willing to include the code for HHH in the input
theory is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests
itself.
>
If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career
bickerer...
if we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and
send him on to his Turing Award? And if so, how?
>
ISTR that there is suspected to be a theoretical window for him, so I
suppose what I'm asking is what sort of boathook we would need to
poke that window a little wider.
>
Can he even get there from here? Evidence would suggest that
simulation is a dead end unless he can find a way to get the
simulated program to include its own simulation in its behaviour,
which he has not yet managed to do - but /is/ there a way?
>
Or could he abandon simulation completely and instead write a TM
parser that builds an AST and walks it looking for evidence of
terminating or looping? If he could, would that turn the trick?
>
Or do we have a latter day Cantor waiting in the wings to close the
window once and for all?
>
Is there, in short, any way of putting out this un-halting flame war
and turning this group to better use?
>
>
representing DDD, then HHH would be able to atempt to correctly
emulate this input.
>
There have been methods put forward, that given an acceptace of the
detectability of DDD calling HHH, which can only be done it seems if
we make the system non-turing complete by saying that the input
program and the decider are put into the same memory space, and we are
not allowed to "copy" an algorithm to make a new copy, but only call
the origianal version so HHH can detect the recursion by reference to
that address that some versions of programs that do this "recursive
simulation" can be correctly decider (but not all, like the
pathological version).
>
In this method, the Decider detecting the recursion, tries emulating
the code in two parrallel branches based on both possible answers, and
if one branch matches the behavior of the answer, it can return that
answ3er.
Branching is my idea.
>
/Flibble
It existed prior.
/Flibble
I think I may have even commented on the idea before you posted, I would need to go back through the archives to be sure, and it isn't worth it. I do know I have memories of this form of solution from the past, of course the biggest limitation is you need to do something to enable the detection of the self-call.
| Date | Sujet | # | Auteur | |
| 21 May 26 |  … |
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.