Sujet : Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 15. Jun 2025, 20:01:16
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <66e38585b7ecd289576aa996ebf365e4e6f81a64@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 30
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/15/25 11:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2025 4:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:44:30 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/14/2025 6:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 17:59:23 +0000, André G. Isaak said:
>
On 2025-06-13 09:36, olcott wrote:
On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.
>
I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am dead.
A web-page will not work for this.
>
Usenet is dying. Do you seriously think it will be around in 50 years?
>
Some of its contents might still be on some web page.
>
Storing every text message ever written seems
to take < 1.0 TB.
>
Doesn't matter. Unlikely that anyone would even notice that you wanted
a validation of something.
>
Anyone with sufficient technical competence carefully
studying what I have said that is not so biased against
my position that they can actually pay complete attention
will understand that I am correct.
Nope, only someone as mentally deranged as yourself would believe your lies.
If this was not the case then there could be a correct
rebuttal to what I am saying now. Instead of any correct
rebuttal all that has been provided is persistently
false assumptions.
There has been, but it has appearently been over you head.
You have demonstarted this by making this claim many times, and the errors you have ignored pointed out.
A termination analyzer / partial halt decider is
required to report on the behavior of the sequence
of state transitions that its input actually specifies.
It is not allowed to report on anything else.
Right, and that sequence of states spedified by that input, is the sequence of states actually generated by that program when run, which since HHH(DDD) returns 0, that sequence of states will reach the final state.
You are just proving you stupidity, and admitting it to the world, by you self-admitted lies (since you keep on insisting in self-contradictiory positions, one of them must be a lie).
…