Sujet : Re: Computable Functions --- finite string transformation rules
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 26. Apr 2025, 21:23:49
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <99367baaadfd647c1d75f4236345a3243a439a0b@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 14:46:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 4/26/2025 1:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
On 4/26/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 25.apr.2025 om 23:21 schreef olcott:
On 4/25/2025 8:56 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:03:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
The program EE(){ HHH(EE); } also halts and cannot be simulated by
HHH.
>
HHH cannot possibly do this without violating the rules of the x86
language.
HHH already violates the rules of the x86 language by prematurely
aborting the halting program.
>
Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules of the x86 language yet no
one can point out which rules are violated
It has been pointed out many times. It is against the rules of the x86
language to abort a halting function.
You remains stupidly wrong about this because you refuse to show what
step of DD is not emulated by HHH according to the finite string
transformation rules specified by the x86 language.
All instructions after the abort are not emulated.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
…