Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 3/21/25 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:typedef void (*ptr)();On 3/21/2025 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:SO you admit to misdefining your system.On 3/21/25 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:>>>
DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
For every HHH at machine address 000015d2 that emulates
a finite number of steps of DDD according to the
semantics of the x86 programming language no DDD
ever reaches its own "ret" instruction halt state.
>
So, you demonstrate your utter stupidity and use of incorrect definitions.
>
For EVERY HHH at machine address 000015d2 that emulates just a finite number of steps and return, then the PROGRAM DDD
does not exist because HHH is invoked from main()
>
>
Halt Deciders take PROGRAM (via a finite string representation) as their input. If DDD isn't a program, you can't ask about its halting behavior.The x86 machine code is the relevant example.
Note, if HHH is a program, then by the basic princples of programs, it can be made into a sub-program of another program. That is a basic part of a system being Turing Complete.--
I guess your idea of programs are that your system is not Turing Complete.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.