Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
Op 26.jul.2024 om 16:16 schreef olcott:No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computationOn 7/26/2024 8:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:We see that the only thing DDD does is calling HHH. So, HHH is fully accountable for the behaviour of DDD and its code is included in the program that must be simulated, otherwise the call from DDD to HHH would result in an error.Op 26.jul.2024 om 15:22 schreef olcott:>On 7/26/2024 1:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 26.jul.2024 om 03:49 schreef olcott:>If you understand the x86 language and can't tell how DDD>
emulated by HHH differs from DDD emulated by HHH1 by the
following then you are probably lying about understanding
the x86 language.
We understand it perfectly. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
You are too stupid to know that a non-halting computation
cannot be emulated to completion because completion does
not exist.
The non-halting behaviour is only in your dreams. It is irrelevant, because HHH halts when it aborts. Remember, HHH is simulating *itself*, a halting program, not another non-halting simulator that does not abort and does not halt.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
DDD(DDD);
}
>
When we understand that HHH is accountable for the behavior of
its input and not accountable for the behavior of the computation
that itself is contained within then we understand that HHH(DDD)
is necessarily correct to reject DDD as non-halting.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.