Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 8/16/2024 1:37 PM, Mike Terry wrote:I don't think that.On 16/08/2024 12:59, olcott wrote:Both Joes and Fred seem to think that every HHH can wait for the nextOn 8/16/2024 1:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:I supposed that I should be annoyed that you deliberately ignore myOp 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:*YOUR MISTAKE*
>
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 thesimulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle toThat is WRONG. The outermost directly executed HHH aborts as soon as
go.
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?
> So your trace is impossible...
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.
one to abort and one of them will still eventually abort.
If you keep insisting that I am wrong and fail to explain all of theJoke's on you if you don't see your own mistake.
details of how I am wrong I will continue to assume that it is your
error of not paying close enough attention.
--But the fact that even with a direct warning that you are
misunderstanding, you still go ahead and repeat your nonsense in the
end just becomes FUNNY. :)
Of course, nothing I said above supports your claims for what it is
saying. I could challenge you to justify your claims, but that would
just waste everybody's time. You are just intellectually incapable of
discussing this topic. (Not your "fault", you're not being lazy or
anything, it's just how your brain is wired.)
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.