XPost: sci.math, comp.theory
From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi
olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 18.42:
> On 11/29/2025 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.54:
>>> On 11/28/2025 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> olcott kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 17.17:
>>>>> On 11/27/2025 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.15:
>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 5.17:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 9:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them ever had the slightest clue about Montague
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grammar. Except for one they all had very severe math
>>>>>>>>>>>>> phobia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So do you; you are terribly afraid of the mathematical idea
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulations that are paused still exist and have future
>>>>>>>>>>>> states.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not going to discuss your psychotic nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In all honesty, you and your therapist /should/ be laser
>>>>>>>>>> focused on your
>>>>>>>>>> own psychotic nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You already agreed that I am correct so this subject
>>>>>>>>>>> is closed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whaaat ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-05, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possbly reach its own simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that D simulation won't reach the return statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But we know that. If H is nonreturning, of course D is.
>>>>>>>>>> Since D calls H(D), D is suspended until H(D) returns,
>>>>>>>>>> which means forever if H(D) is nonterminating.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what you are trying to milk out of this;
>>>>>>>>>> it is completely uncontroversial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I really did figure out how to determine the
>>>>>>>>> correct halt status that the halting problem's
>>>>>>>>> counter-example input specifies to it decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The basic halting problem is about Turing machines. A Turing
>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>> specifies only one bhavour. It does not specify anything else to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> decider. An ambiguous program is outside of the domain of the
>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is inaccurate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not. Of course there are many ways to formulate the problem
>>>>>> but what I said is true about the basic formulation. All formulations
>>>>>> restrict the domain to unambiguous specifications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a perfectly unambiguous ultimately
>>>>> self-contradictory specification.
>>>>
>>>> If the specification of D is perfectly unambiguous there is no point
>>>> to say "specifies to its decider".
>>>
>>> That DD simulated by HHH never stops running
>>> unless aborted by HHH proves that the input
>>> to HHH(DD) specifies non halting behavior.
>>
>> That DD halts when executed by a C conforming execution environment
>> proves that the input to HHH(DD) specifies a halting behaviour.
>
> Yes if you are stupid enough to believe that the caller
> of a function is always one-and-the-same-thing as the
> argument to this dame function.
Shoud that response be rejectd as an ad nominem or as a straw man?
Anyway, given that HHH is what it is in GithHub, the C semantics say
that the argument to HHH is a pointer to DD and that DD halts.
--
Mikko
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
