Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:No stupid I provided a published paper that includes theOn 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as both of those are operations done on PROGRAMS.On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:>On 11/17/2024 2:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:>void DDD()>
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
DDD emulated by any encoding of HHH that emulates N
to infinity number of steps of DDD cannot possibly
reach its "return" instruction final halt state.
>
This applies to every DDD emulated by any HHH no
matter the recursive depth of emulation. Thus it is
a verified fact that the input to HHH never halts.
>
>
I will also add, that since you have dropped your requirements on HHH (or are seeming to try to divorse yourself from previous assumptions) there are MANY HHH that can complete the emulation, they just fail to be "pure functions".
>
The damned liar despicably dishonest attempt to get away
with changing the subject away from DDD reaching its final
halt state.
>
Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a "Program" is are DEFINED, and you can't change it.
>
YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.
A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT
PROGRAM WHEN I ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.