Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 8/16/2024 1:37 PM, Mike Terry wrote:Fred above says that when HHH aborts simulated HHH, the simulation has only one more cycle to go before it terminates. *HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HHH MUST WAIT ONE MORE CYCLE BEFORE ABORTING*. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't think what you think he "seems to think".On 16/08/2024 12:59, olcott wrote:Both Joes and Fred seem to think that every HHH can wait forOn 8/16/2024 1:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:>
>
It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the
*YOUR MISTAKE*simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go.That is WRONG. The outermost directly executed HHH aborts
as soon as it has seen enough of the emulated execution
trace to correctly predict that an unlimited execution
would never stop running.
>
*With abort as soon as you know*
*there is never one more cycle to go*
>
*MIKES CORRECTION OF YOUR MISTAKE*
On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
>> HHH simulates DDD enter the matrix
>> DDD calls HHH(DDD) Fred: could be eliminated
>> HHH simulates DDD second level
>> DDD calls HHH(DDD) recursion detected
>> HHH aborts, returns outside interference
>> DDD halts voila
>> HHH halts
>
> You're misunderstanding the scenario? If your simulated
> HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
>
*THIS PART RIGHT HERE*
> then the outer level H would have aborted its
> identical simulation earlier. You know that, right?
>
> [It's what people have been discussing
> here endlessly for the last few months! :) ]
>
> So your trace is impossible...
>
I supposed that I should be annoyed that you deliberately ignore my request to stop misrepresting my views and opinions. You /know/ I don't agree with how you're misusing my words - but you do it anyway.
>
the next one to abort and one of them will still eventually
abort.
Please try and explain to me exactly how your words didWell first off - what you're challenging me to explain isn't something that either Fred or Joes were saying, so if you believed my words "corrected that error" then you had no justification in quoting me, because Fred and Joes /weren't making that error/. This is just you not following the thread of conversation, or not understanding the meaning of what Fred/Joes are saying to you. It would be like you saying "HHH correctly decides DDD" and I post a reply sending you to an atheist web site. When challenged I say "I thought you believed in God which is a mistake, so sending you to the web site would address that error." [You see, it doesn't hang together...]
not correct this error.
If you keep insisting that I am wrong and fail to explain allYou won't understand my explanation above in any case. The point is that now you understand that you are misrepresenting my views - SO DON'T DO IT ANY MORE.
of the details of how I am wrong I will continue to assume that
it is your error of not paying close enough attention.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.