Sujet : Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 22. May 2025, 07:52:37
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <9af78257f75aa43a76d4b75e226bf92aeaf62463@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Wed, 21 May 2025 18:14:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
All of the proofs ASSUME that there is an input D that can ACTUALLY DO
the opposite of whatever value that H returns making it impossible for H
to decide D.
No, the proof assumes there is a *decider* and then shows exactly *how*
to construct a counterexample.
-- 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.