| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:59:58 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,681 |
On 2025-10-11 13:44:09 +0000, olcott said:
On 10/11/2025 8:41 AM, dbush wrote:
On 10/11/2025 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
That is only because you stupidly ignore the expresslyBut the pattern in question is *not* a non-halting behavior pattern
stated details of correctly matching correct non-halting
behavior patterns.
because it exists in the halting computation DD.
Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their finite string inputs to an accept state
or reject state on the basis that this input finite
string specifies a semantic or syntactic property.
The only way to correctly determine the actual behavior
that an actual input actually specifies is for simulating
halt decider H to simulate its input D.
Another way is to use partial halting deciders that are proven to
never give a wrong answer until one of them gives some answer.