Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/10/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:As we onece observed, this would be clearer with incdices.On 2024-08-09 14:51:51 +0000, olcott said:*The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
On 8/9/2024 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:Looks like encrypted text that might mean something.On 2024-08-08 13:18:34 +0000, olcott said:Here is something that literally does not mean anything:
void DDD()The ranges of "each HHH" and "every HHH" are not defined above
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
*emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
its "return" instruction halt state.
so that does not really mean anything.
"0i34ine ir m0945r (*&ubYU I*(ubn)I*054 gfdpodf["
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"This could be encrypted text, too, or perhaps refers to some
inside knowledge or convention.
I defined an infinite set of HHH x86 emulators.Maybe somewnete but not in the message I commented.
I stipulated that each member of this set emulatesThat doesn't restrict much.
zero to infinity instructions of DDD.
*I can't say it this way without losing 90% of my audience*It is easier to talk about mapping if is given a name.
Each element of this set is mapped to one element of the
set of non-negative integers indicating the number of
x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates.
*This one seems to be good*That would mean that only a finite number (possibly zero) of
Each element of this set corresponds to one element of
the set of positive integers indicating the number of
x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates.
instructions is emulated. But the restriction to DDD does not
seem reasonable.
Each element of this set corresponds to one element of
the set of positive integers indicating the number of
x86 instructions of DDD that it correctly emulates.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.