Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 11/11/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 11/11/24 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:On 11/11/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote:Am Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:58:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:On 11/11/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-11-09 14:36:07 +0000, olcott said:On 11/9/2024 7:53 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-11-08 14:41:57 +0000, olcott said:On 11/8/2024 3:57 AM, joes wrote:Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 15:56:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:On 11/7/2024 3:24 PM, joes wrote:Am Thu, 07 Nov 2024 10:31:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:On 11/7/2024 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 11/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
You can leave out the "emulated by". It says right in the code of DDDDDD emulated by HHH SPECIFIES THAT HHH MUST emulate itself emulatingBut the emulation by HHH isn't the measure that a Decider is supposedDDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction final haltThe actual computation itself does involve HHH emulating itselfWhich is what you are doing: you pretend that DDD calls some other
emulating DDD. To simply pretend that this does not occur seems
dishonest.
HHH that doesn’t abort.
state whether HHH aborts its emulation or not.
HOW STUPID CAN POSSIBLY YOU BE?
WHEN I CORRECT YOU DOZENS OF TIMES YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE.
to use,
DDD.
DDD emulated by HHH1 SPECIFIES THAT HHH1 MUST NOT emulate itself
emulating DDD.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.