Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/30/2025 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:Only if your brain is an x86 processor with unlimited RAM.On 5/30/2025 8:48 PM, dbush wrote:And those set of concepts change the input as described below.On 5/30/2025 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/30/2025 8:28 PM, dbush wrote:>On 5/30/2025 6:34 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/30/2025 2:11 PM, dbush wrote:>On 5/30/2025 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/30/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote:>On 5/30/2025 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:>On 5/30/2025 1:48 PM, dbush wrote:>On 5/30/2025 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:>It is a verified fact that the>
*input input input input input input*
*input input input input input input*
*input input input input input input*
*input input input input input input*
>
to HHH(DDD)
>
i.e. a description of algorithm DDD consisting of the fixed code of the function DDD, the fixed code of the function HHH, and the fixed code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level.
>
Never stops running unless HHH aborts its emulation
In other words, if you change the input so that HHH doesn't abort.
>
Changing the input is not allowed.
I never changed the input you freaking moron.
>
>
You did exactly what when you hypothesized a different implementation of function HHH. And since function HHH is part of the input, you changed the input.
>
Changing the input, hypothetically or otherwise, is not allowed.
It can be seen by humans that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH would never stop running unless aborted.
In other words, if the code of HHH was changed to not abort, DDD would not halt when executed directly. That changes the input.
>
Changing the input is not allowed.
When a human imagines all of the possibilities
of every HHH that can possibly exist
You change the input,
I am taking about a set of concepts
that you hold in your own mind, jackass.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.