Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Op 05.sep.2024 om 19:17 schreef olcott:CORRECT MEANS DO WHATEVER THE X86 CODE SAYSOn 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:Indeed! There is no way to make HHH correct for all inputs, in particular not for the input that uses HHH's algorithm.Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:It is very well known by this point.Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:You KEEP TRYING TO CHEAT by erasing the context !!!On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:>Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:I don’t know, you claim it’s a decider!How the F--- Does the emulated HHH return?Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH reaches its own machineBy HHH returning, which we are guaranteed from its definition as a
address 0000217f.
decider.
>DDD emulated by HHH CANNOT POSSIBLY reach its own machine addressOnly HHH can’t simulate it.
0000217f.
>The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDDWhy doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?
must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in recursive
emulation.
>
The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort
which is waiting for its HHH to abort on and on
with no HHH ever aborting.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.