Sujet : Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort
De : polcott2 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 24. Mar 2024, 04:40:22
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <uto3qm$4tt$4@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/23/2024 9:34 PM, immibis wrote:
On 24/03/24 03:15, olcott wrote:
On 3/23/2024 8:40 PM, immibis wrote:
On 24/03/24 00:29, olcott wrote:
On 3/23/2024 5:58 PM, immibis wrote:
On 23/03/24 16:02, olcott wrote:
(b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
(ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.
>
To be a decider it has to give an answer.
>
To be a halt decider it has to give an answer that is the same as whether the direct execution of its input would halt.
>
That would entail that
>
Tough shit. That is the requirement.
>
I proved otherwise in the parts you erased.
You proved that the requirement is not actually the requirement?
I proved that it cannot be a coherent requirement, it can still
be an incoherent requirement. Try and think it through for yourself.
Can it be a legitimate for a TM to be required to compute something
that is only in your head?
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…