Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 2024-10-16 17:13:12 +0000, olcott said:Everyone focuses so much on rebuttal at the expense
On 10/16/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:Your "In other words" is a lie.On 2024-10-16 03:52:00 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/15/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:>On 10/15/2024 4:58 AM, joes wrote:>Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:12:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/14/24 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:On 10/14/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:On 10/14/24 5:53 AM, olcott wrote:On 10/14/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2024-10-13 12:49:01 +0000, Richard Damon said:On 10/12/24 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:Can you please give the date and time? Did you also explicitly disclaimI quit claiming this many messages ago and you didn't bother to notice.Trying to change to a different analytical framework than the one thatBut, you claim to be working on that Halting Problem,
I am stipulating is the strawman deception. *Essentially an
intentional fallacy of equivocation error*
it or just silently leave it out?
>
Even people of low intelligence that are not trying to
be as disagreeable as possible would be able to notice
that a specified C function is not a Turing machine.
But it needs to be computationally equivalent to one to ask about Termination.
>
Not at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
A termination analyzer need not be a Turing computable function.
There is no known way to construct one that isn't. No computer can
execute a function that is not Turing computable.
In other words you think that functions that
rely on global data such that they are not a
pure function of their inputs are A OK?
What is OK depends on the purpose.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.