Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 11/18/24 4:11 PM, olcott wrote:No shit-for-brains that is not true.On 11/18/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But both are only that if they never stop.On 11/18/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:>On 11/18/2024 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 11/18/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:>On 11/18/2024 8:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 11/18/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:>On 11/18/2024 3:19 AM, joes wrote:>Am Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:35:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:>On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 11/17/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:On 11/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 11/17/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:>I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings of HHH.
Do you mean they are parameterised by the number of steps they simulate?
>
No I do not mean that.
Then your arguement is based on an equivocation.
>Whether or not DDD emulated by HHH ever reaches its>
own "return" instruction final halt state has nothing
to do with any of the internal working of HHH as long
as each HHH emulates N steps of its input according
to the semantics of the x86 language.
Except that the behavior DOES depend on if that HHH returns.
>
Of course, your subjective, non-semantic property of "emulated by HHH" is just a meaningless term, so doesn't really mean anything, so your statement is just nonsense anyway.
>
You are a damned liar trying to get away with lying about
the effect of the pathological relationship that DDD specifies.
>
>
Nope, you are a just a damned liar making claims without any form of actual logic behind them.
>
Do you have ANY source that backs your claims about what you claim?
>
DEFECTION FOR BRAINS
DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH emulates
itself emulating DDD such that no such DDD can ever
reach its "return" instruction final halt state.
>
*Professor Hehner recognized this repeating process before I did*
From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an interpreter to a
program text that includes a call to that same interpreter with that
same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting
program has some of the same character as an interpreter: it applies
to texts through abstract interpretation. Unsurprisingly, if we apply
a halting program to a program text that includes a call to that same
halting program with that same text as argument, then we have an
infinite loop. (Hehner:2011:15)
>
[5] E C R Hehner. Problems with the Halting Problem, COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>
Note, HHH is not a "interpreter" tasked with recreating the behavior of the input.
>
An emulator is isomorphic to an interpreter shit-for-brains.
HHH is not an "interpreter" or an "emulator" it is a decider, just likeHHH <is> an emulator shit-for-brains. That it is more
all halt deciders / termination analyzers. It may use partial emulation as a method, but it fails to meet the definition of a full emulator.No shit-for-brains. Your severe brain damage keeps
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.