Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:49:55 -0600 schrieb olcott:*This is a verified fact that seems too difficult for you to understand*On 11/12/2024 8:23 AM, joes wrote:Am Tue, 12 Nov 2024 07:58:03 -0600 schrieb olcott:On 11/12/2024 1:12 AM, joes wrote:No. When the HHH that simulates DDD aborts, it also means that the HHHAm Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:35:57 -0600 schrieb olcott: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:DDD emulated by HHH does not reach its "return" instruction whetherThe 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.
HHH aborts its emulation or not.
that DDD calls aborts,
In no case does DDD emulated by any HHH that aborts at some point or not
does the emulated DDD ever reach its "return" instruction.
Guessing „No HHH that may or may not abort simulating a DDD that calls*There is no guessing to it*
that (aborting or not) HHH can simulate DDD halting.”
That is wrong. When you abort simulating, you can’t tell if it maybe_DDD()
would have halted later on.
You can’t say that something didn’t halt*This must just be over your head*
just because you didn’t simulate further than some fixed number of
steps.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.