Sujet : Re: How Partial Simulations incorrectly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.com (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 07. Jun 2024, 17:27:53
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3v8tp$39q1p$3@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:05:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:
Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :
Turing machines can take a finite string machine description of the
computation that contains themselves they cannot the computation that
actually contains themselves.
Does not parse.
Recursion can be encoded in a finite string.
The issue here is that I proved that DD correctly simulated by HH has
different behavior than the directly executed DD(DD) and everyone's
"rebuttal" to this proof is to simply ignore it.
When you actually try to form a rebuttal of the above you will see that
I am correct. So far everyone simply ignores the proof that I am correct
as their only rebuttal.
The rebuttal is that a simulation should behave the same as the real
thing.
-- joes
…