Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/14/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:The impossibility [...] is proof that DDD doesn't return? Wow.On 2024-08-13 13:21:32 +0000, olcott said:The impossibility of DDD emulated by HHH (according to the semantics ofOn 8/13/2024 6:08 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-08-11 11:45:18 +0000, olcott said:>On 8/11/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-08-10 11:30:34 +0000, olcott said:void DDD()On 8/10/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:>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:>
>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.
The ranges of "each HHH" and "every HHH" are not defined above
so that does not really mean anything.
Here is something that literally does not 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 emulates zero toThat doesn't restrict much.
infinity instructions of DDD.
>*I can't say it this way without losing 90% of my audience*>
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.
It is easier to talk about mapping if is given a name.
>*This one seems to be good*>
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.
That would mean that only a finite number (possibly zero) of
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.
As we onece observed, this would be clearer with incdices.
No journal woth of consideration will accept an article that uses
the same name for a specific program and a set.
>
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
None-the-less it is clear that of the above specified infinite set
DDD correctly emulated by each element of that set never reaches its
own "return" instruction halt state.
To emulate an infinite set of DDD by infintely manu emulators is too
much to actually do. However, one may pick a HHHᵤ and DDDᵥ so that
HHHᵤ(DDDᵥ) correctly determines that DDDᵥ halts.
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.
No, we don't see, at least as long as you don't show.
the x86 language) to reach its own machine address [00002183] is compete
proof.
We don't even need an actual HHH we only need to imagine that HHH is aHHH is not a pure simulator, because it aborts.
pure x86 emulator and then anyone with sufficient expertise in the x86
language can see that DDD correctly emulated by HHH never reaches
machine address [00002183].
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.