Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 9/9/2024 3:02 PM, joes wrote:HHH1 and HHH are identical code yet have differentAm Mon, 09 Sep 2024 13:19:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:Right [and] Bill is guilty of robbing the liquor store because youOn 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said:On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said:Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:I don’t see an HCF instruction above.A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even if this machine codeHowever, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the originalPATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIORIf the simulation is incorrect it may change anything.What does simulating it change about that?The directly executed HHH is a decider.>>>A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, onlyLocal Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation
whether that behaviour is finite or infinite.
>
Stopped
Hence HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
HHH terminates, so DDD obviously terminates, too.
DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.
If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return
and therefore is not a ceicder.
>
behaviour.
>
catches the machine on fire.
>It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to reach machine addressI know that HHH1 does it.
00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
>
saw his identical twin brother Harry rob the store and you knew
that it was Harry that you saw rob the store and not Bill.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.