Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v8nsmt$1n09$5@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 07:37:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 51 Message-ID: <v8nsmt$1n09$5@dont-email.me> References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kp6s$3c5h2$2@dont-email.me> <v8ld1f$3f6vr$5@dont-email.me> <v8n9vm$3ume2$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 14:37:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="903796c801119a1f2fd86200a8e93bf1"; logging-data="56329"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/A3PENzla36/5ByN4komIo" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:k0zSCgS38e0czQMx0xVtam7PTXE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v8n9vm$3ume2$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 2831 On 8/4/2024 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-08-03 13:58:07 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 8/3/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-08-02 20:57:26 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated >>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? >>>> >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>> HHH(DDD); >>>> return; >>>> } >>> >>> Everyone here understands that that depends on whther HHH returns. >> >> Fred's understanding is worse than that. > > You don't know whether that is true. > >> Some have deeper understanding than that. >> >> *Ben has the best understanding of all* > > In particular better than you. > *Ben has a deeper agreement with me than anyone else* <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. .... > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it > were not halted. That much is a truism. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer