Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/15/25 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:Mike explains all of the details of how theOn 5/15/2025 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:"Aborted by H" wasn't in the quote.On 5/15/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/15/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 5/15/25 4:47 PM, olcott wrote:>I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting>
Problem in that the code that
"does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns"
becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.
Nope, only to youtr INCORRECTLY simuated by HHH.
>
In other words you believe that professor Sipser
screwed up when he agreed with these exact words.
No, you just don't know the meaning of them.
>>>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
>
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
>
>
Remember, he works in Computation Theory, and thus talks about PROGRAMS, these BY DEFINITION include all of their algrorithm/code as part of themselves.
>
You have admitted/stipuated that YOUR "DD" and "DDD" are NOT program, but just (non-leaf) "C functions", and thus his statement just doesn't apply to your system.
>
Also, "its simulated D would never stop runnign unless aborted" means exactly that, The D that H was given
cannot possibly ever stop running unless aborted by H
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.