olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
No BRAIN DEAD MORON this is not true, I keep calling you a BRAIN DEAD
MORON because after I have explain all the details you cannot remember
what I just said.
I see the petulant six-year-old is in residence today.
A decider maps its inputs to its own accept reject state.
A halt decider does not compute the halt status of itself.
A halt decider, let's call it H, maps the input <Ĥ> <Ĥ> to its accept
state if (and only if) Ĥ enter a final state on input <Ĥ>, and it maps
<Ĥ> <Ĥ> to its reject state if (and only if) Ĥ does not enter a final
state on input <Ĥ>.
No such H exists.
You implicitly accept this fact because you propose an H which does not
meet this specification but I can't see why you think anyone would care
about it.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 3/18/2022 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:You have changed the subject away from the Linz proof's conclusion
On 3/18/2022 11:54 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
No BRAIN DEAD MORON this is not true, I keep calling you a BRAIN DEAD >>>>>> MORON because after I have explain all the details you cannot remember >>>>>> what I just said.I see the petulant six-year-old is in residence today.
A decider maps its inputs to its own accept reject state.
A halt decider does not compute the halt status of itself.
A halt decider, let's call it H, maps the input <Ĥ> <Ĥ> to its accept >>
that deals with Ĥ applied to <Ĥ> and not H applied to <Ĥ> <Ĥ>.
You made an incorrect statement about a halt decider. I corrected it.
You will ignore the correction. The conversation remains exactly as it
was years ago.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 465 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 76:32:15 |
Calls: | 9,416 |
Calls today: | 8 |
Files: | 13,575 |
Messages: | 6,101,945 |
Posted today: | 1 |