Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 3/11/24 6:19 AM, olcott wrote:There is no such thing as a sub-machine.On 3/11/2024 1:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Really?On 3/10/24 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:>
>*Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*>
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
>
Yes, you have rotely repeated that many times, not knowing what that implies, or doesn't imply.
>
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
>
*Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
*Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
*Every implementation of Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer*
A "submachine" doesn't have a requirement except to act as the machine it is a copy of.
So, what you are REALLY Saying is that:Both answers of YES and NO are incorrect for any H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
H (H^) (H^) gets the wrong answer for every implementation of H,
but then we see that you are changing the input across you arguement, and thus it doesn't show an invalid questin.Both YES and NO are the wrong answer to the question:
There are Many H' that can get the answer to the question that this H is being asked, so the question is valid.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.