Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 4/28/2024 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:No, the way to get people to understand what you are saying is to use the standard terminology, and start with what people will accept and move to what is harder to understand.On 4/28/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:The only way to get people to understand that I am correctOn 4/28/2024 8:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 4/28/24 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:>On 4/28/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-04-28 00:17:48 +0000, olcott said:>
>Can D simulated by H terminate normally?>
One should not that "D simulated by H" is not the same as
"simulation of D by H". The message below seems to be more
about the latter than the former. In any case, it is more
about the properties of H than about the properties of D.
>
D specifies what is essentially infinite recursion to H.
Several people agreed that D simulated by H cannot possibly
reach past its own line 03 no matter what H does.
Nope, it is only that if H fails to be a decider.
>
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
*We don't make this leap of logic. I never used the term decider*
>
You admit that people see that as being a claim about the Halting Problem, and thus the implied definitons of the terms apply.
>
and thus not always ignore my words and leap to the conclusion
that I must be wrong is to insist that they review every single
detail of all of my reasoning one tiny step at a time.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.