Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:_DDD()On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:Open question.Why do they get to lie?Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately loop>Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues toBut I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not
give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>
the final end.
Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are
false?
in the emulation.
If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flagWhy do you keep lying about this?Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and truth isNothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partialYou keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an
emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a
fully correct emulator.
incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>
As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.
or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. <-
Which it therefore isn’t.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.