Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 5/17/2024 5:45 AM, Mikko wrote:That obviously implies that there is no case where both "yes" and "no"On 2024-05-16 14:48:21 +0000, olcott said:You are correct and I merely had a typo, I mean "NO" is the correct
On 5/16/2024 5:42 AM, Mikko wrote:For every computation "yes" is the correct answer if and only if one canOn 2024-05-15 15:06:26 +0000, olcott said:Yet it <is> an incremental improvement over both YES and NO are
On 5/15/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:That does not satisfy the usual definition of "halt decider".On 2024-05-14 14:32:26 +0000, olcott said:I refer to transitioning through a specific state to indicate
On 5/14/2024 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:That notation is not any better for the purpose.On 2024-05-12 15:58:02 +0000, olcott said:00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
On 5/12/2024 10:21 AM, Mikko wrote:This notation does not work with machines that can, or have partsOn 2024-05-12 11:34:17 +0000, Richard Damon said:When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
On 5/12/24 5:19 AM, Mikko wrote:Here one can claim whatever one wants anysay.On 2024-05-11 16:26:30 +0000, olcott said:I think he means, he is working on a definition that redefines the field to allow him to claim what he wants.
I am working on providing an academic quality definition of thisThe definition in Wikipedia is good enough.
term.
In if one wants to present ones claims on some significant forum then
it is better to stick to usual definitions as much as possible.
Sort of like his new definition of H as an "unconventional" machine that some how both returns an answer but also keeps on running.There are systems where that is possible but unsolvable problems are
unsolvable even in those systems.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
that can, return a value without (or before) termination.
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
a specific halt status value, for Turing Machines.
the wrong answer for input D. YES <is> the correct answer and H
can not SAY this answer in the conventional way.
construct a finite sequence of configurations so that the first one is the
initial configuration, each other one follows from the previous one by a
transition rule, and no possible configuration follows from the last one
by any transition rule. If "yes" is not the correct answer then "no" is.
Therefore there is no D where neither "yes" and "no" is wrong for the
same input.
answer if the above is not met, otherwise YES is the correct answer.
What everyone gets confused about is that they disagree that:Who, other than you, has ever said otherwise?
a partial halt decider must determine its correct halt status decision on the basis of the actual behavior that its input actually specifies.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.