Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 7/30/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:In fact, HHH cannot possibly simulate *itself* correctly. That is the difference. HHH deviates from the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of the simulation of itself.Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:32:44 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 7/29/2024 3:17 PM, joes wrote:>Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:32:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 7/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-07-27 14:21:50 +0000, olcott said:On 7/27/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-07-26 16:28:43 +0000, olcott said:It always is except in the case where the decider is reporting on the TMHalt deciders are not allowed to report on the behavior of the actualWhat if the input is the same as the containing computation?
computation that they themselves are contained within. They are only
allowed to compute the mapping from input finite strings.
description that itself is contained within.I don't understand. "The input is not the same as the containingvoid DDD()
computation when deciding on the description of the containing
computation"?
>
{
HHH(DDD);
}
The behavior of the correct emulation of the x86 machine
language input DDD to a emulating halt decider HHH is not
the same as behavior of the direct execution of DDD when
the x86 machine language of DDD is correctly emulated
by emulating halt decider HHH that calls HHH(DDD) (itself).
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.