Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 4/28/2025 10:18 AM, dbush wrote:No, all you have proved is that you are a stupid liar.On 4/28/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:I have just proved that those requirements are stupidly wrongOn 4/28/2025 2:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:>On 28/04/2025 07:46, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>
>
<snip>
>So we agree that no algorithm exists that can determine for all possible inputs whether the input specifies a program that (according to the semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed.>
Correct?
Correct. We can, however, construct such an algorithm just as long as we can ignore any input we don't like the look of.
>
The behavior of the direct execution of DD cannot be derived
by applying the finite string transformation rules specified
by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD). This proves that
The assumption that an H exists that meets the below requirements is false, as shown by Linz and others:
>
IT IS UTTERLY MORONIC OR DECEITFUL TO DISAGREE WITH THE X86 LANGUAGE
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.