Sujet : Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 07. Mar 2024, 21:59:06
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <usd6aa$150h1$2@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/6/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/7/2024 12:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/6/24 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqy ∞ // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.Hqn // Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
The design of Olcott Machines makes quite easy for Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
to get its abort criteria.
>
>
Which doesn't match the Halting Problem requirements,
It does match the Halting Problem requirements, when
they are implemented indirectly as "abort criteria".
Which is a different criteria, so you are just admitting that you are using a strawman desception and thus INTENTIONALLY LYING.
Somehow you think lies are ok if they help you prove your false statements.
Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--
Re: Refutation of the Peter Linz Halting Problem proof 2024-03-05 --partial agreement--