Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:58:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 8/13/2024 8:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:On 8/13/2024 2:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 12.aug.2024 om 14:42 schreef olcott:On 8/11/2024 2:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 11.aug.2024 om 13:45 schreef olcott:Beautiful:(b) Strawman-deception of changing what I said and rebutting thatThat's a lie, too. I've not seen anybody else apart from you doing
this. Indeed you're doing this as a response to Fred's last post.Through something like mathematical induction we can directly see that
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return"
instruction final halt state.
HHH is only required to predict whether or not an unlimited emulation of
DDD would ever halt.
Not really. It should predict whether DDD *by itself* halts, not whatIt is objectively incorrect to disagree with the semantics
any simulator does to its encoding. It can trivially predict what
*itself* returns. By the way DDD's halting depends on HHH.
--Thus when computing the behavior that this finite string specifies DDDDDD halts.
never halts.
DDD always has the exact same finite string of machine code bytes. ThisIt also requires HHH to make up its mind whether it will abort or not.
requires each HHH to always be at machine address 000015d2.The computation is always reporting whether or not DDD can possibly
reach its c3 "ret" instruction at machine address [00002183].
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.