Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 11:22:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:Everyone claims that HHH violates the rulesOn 4/25/2025 5:09 PM, joes wrote:Which x86 semantics does a processor violate when deriving a haltingAm Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:46:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 4/25/2025 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 4/25/25 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:There are no finite string operations that can be applied to the inputOnce we understand that Turing computable functions are only allowedYouy have your words wrong. They are only ABLE to use finite
to derived their outputs by applying finite string operations to
their inputs then my claim about the behavior of DD that HHH must
report on is completely proven.
>
algorithms of finite string operations. The problem they need to
solve do not need to be based on that, but on just general mappings
of finite strings to finite strings that might not be described by a
finite algorithm.
The mapping is computable, *IF* we can find a finite algorith of
transformation steps to make that mapping.
>
to HHH(DD) that derive the behavior of of the directly executed DD
thus DD is forbidden from reporting on this behavior.Yes, there are, the operations that the processor executes. How did youWhen you try to actually show the actual steps instead of being stuck in
think it works?
>
utterly baseless rebuttal mode YOU FAIL!
state from the string description of DD?
When any HHH emulates DD according to the finite string transformationYes, where is that line?
rules specified by the x86 language (the line of demarcation between
correct and incorrect emulation) no emulated DD can possibly reach its
final halt state and halt.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.