Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:33:16 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <91dc3f74c936296557e8c2897e03a9d662fae1dd@i2pn2.org> References: <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org> <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:33:16 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1940917"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4299 Lines: 50 Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 09:15:09 -0600 schrieb olcott: > On 11/11/2024 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-11-09 14:56:14 +0000, olcott said: >>> On 11/9/2024 3:53 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-11-08 14:39:20 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> On 11/8/2024 6:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-11-07 16:39:57 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> On 11/7/2024 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-11-06 15:26:06 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2024 8:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-05 13:18:43 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-03 15:13:56 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2024 7:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-02 12:24:29 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> Turing Machine Halting Problem Input − A Turing machine and an input >>>>> string w. >>>>> Problem − Does the Turing machine finish computing of the string w >>>>> in a finite number of steps? The answer must be either yes or no. >>> The computation specified by the finite string DDD emulated by HHH >>> cannot possibly reach its "return" >>> instruction final halt state. >> It can and does if HHH is a decider and otherwise does not matter. >>> The computation specified by the finite string DDD emulated by HHH1 IS >>> NOT THE ACTUAL INPUT TO HHH. >> HHH1 can take same inputs as HHH. These inputs specify some behaviour. >> What they do with this input may differ. > *It is the behavior of their own input that they must report on* It is the same input. > It has always been ridiculously stupid for everyone here to require HHH > to ignore the actual behavior specified by its own input and instead > report on the behavior of the input to HHH1. The input is the same: DDD which calls HHH. >>> HHH must compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR THAT THIS >>> INPUT SPECIFIES. >> Not to full behaviour but to one feature of that behaviour. >> Doesn't HHH1 need to? > Both HHH and HHH1 must report on whether or not their simulation of > their own input can possibly reach its own "return" instruction final > halt state. They get different answers ONLY BECAUSE THE BEHAVIOR OF > THEIR INPUT DDD IS DIFFERENT! That makes no sense. The simulators do different things to the same input. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.