Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:Turing Machines and Olcott machines cannot properly implementOn 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:I noticed that you gave up on Olcott machines and now you are back to your old bullshit ways of pretending that the same machine can produce two different execution traces on the same input. Why don't you show us an execution trace where that happens? Both traces must show the first instruction that is different in both traces and I recommend showing 20 more instructions after that, but you can abort one after that time, if it doesn't halt, to prevent the trace getting infinitely long.On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:>ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound.>
So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsoundBoth H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:>
(a) Their input halts H.qy
(b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
relationship to itself H.qn.
But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>
expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real Turing machines?
>I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES>
when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO, so you haven't solved it
All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.