thus the only limit to recursive simulations is RAM
On Mon, 19 Jun 2023 17:50:47 -0500, olcott wrote:
thus the only limit to recursive simulations is RAM
You might as well set an arbitrary limit on recursion, because
that's what you are, in effect, doing.
C'mon, back to the drawing board.
Meanwhile, the logical fallacy you employ:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/constructing-a-logical-argument/#nauseam
fu2: alt.dev.null
Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> writes:
...
If it's all the same to you, I'd much rather PO's stalking threads
(those where tries to get my attention) simply died a natural death.
He's become obsessed with me ever since I stopped talking to him, and I
don't want him encouraged.
If you must reply, at least change the subject so that it's accurate (as above!).
Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
the full semantics of the question <bla>
Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?"
Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.
Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is
"yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.
Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared that
the wrong answer is the right one:
Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even
though P(P) halts?"
PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
(Back then, D was called P.)
This was not a slip of the tongue. He has been quite clear that he is talking about something other than what the world calls halting. It's
about what /would/ happen if the program were slight different, not
about what actually happens:
PO: "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
unless its simulation is aborted. This maps to every element of the
conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a
few more."
He has been (eventually) perfectly clear -- PO's "Other Halting" is not halting, which is why false can be the correct answer for some halting computations. The only mystery is why anyone still wants to talk about
POOH.
On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 5:58:39 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
the full semantics of the question <bla>
Look, dumbo, we are asking the simple question: "Does D(D) halt?"
Now, D(D) either halts or doesn't halt.
Hence the CORRECT yes/no-answer to the question "Does D(D) halt?" is
"yes" iff D(D) halts and "no" if D(D) doesn't halt.
Just a reminder that you are arguing with someone who has declared that
the wrong answer is the right one:
Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even
though P(P) halts?"
PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
(Back then, D was called P.)
This was not a slip of the tongue. He has been quite clear that he is
talking about something other than what the world calls halting. It's
about what /would/ happen if the program were slight different, not
about what actually happens:
PO: "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
unless its simulation is aborted. This maps to every element of the
conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a >> few more."
He has been (eventually) perfectly clear -- PO's "Other Halting" is not
halting, which is why false can be the correct answer for some halting
computations. The only mystery is why anyone still wants to talk about
POOH.
Stop doing this Ben !!!
When we use the criteria:
Can D correctly simulated by H ever terminate normally?
After N steps of correct simulation the execution trace of D proves that
D cannot possibly reach its final instruction and terminate normally in
any finite number of steps.
This criteria matches non-halting input and it also matches the cases
where the input D has been intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
When H returns 1 it means that its input halts and when H return 0
it means that either its input does not halt or D was intentionally
defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
To the best of my knowledge no one has ever made this much progress on
the halting problem's pathological input. To the best of my knowledge everyone else was completely stumped by the halting problem's
pathological input.
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
On 6/19/2023 3:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
<cut>Me: "do you still assert that [...] false is the "correct" answer even >>>> though P(P) halts?"
PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
This was not a slip of the tongue. He has been quite clear that he is >>>> talking about something other than what the world calls halting. It's >>>> about what /would/ happen if the program were slight different, not
about what actually happens:
PO: "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
unless its simulation is aborted. This maps to every element of the
conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a
few more."
Ben is just pointing out the ERRORS in your logic
I don't think I pointed to any errors of logic. I just quoted PO so
that readers can see what he's talking about.
Why do you keep making posts with personally derogatory subject lines?
You are just amplifying his nasty voice.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:20:16 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,423 |