Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 4/23/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:The input to HHH(DD) does specify the recursive emulationOn 4/23/2025 6:25 AM, joes wrote:But neither the "direct execution" or the "simulation by HHH" are "inputs" to HHH. What is the input is the representation of the program to be decided on.Am Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:51:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 4/22/2025 1:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 22.apr.2025 om 18:28 schreef olcott:On 4/22/2025 7:57 AM, joes wrote:Am Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:44:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:No, DD halts (when executed directly). HHH is not a halt decider, not even>>libx86emu <is> a correct x86 processor and does emulate its inputsYou continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y) {return xWhat else is it missing that the processor uses to execute it?
+ y; }
returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly understand how these
things fundamentally work.
>
It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on the direct
execution of DD when you are not telling it one damn thing about
this direct execution.
>
correctly.
The key thing here is that Olcott consistently does not understand that
HHH is given a finite string input that according to the semantics of
the x86 language specifies a halting program,
That is stupidly incorrect.
for DD only.
>People here stupidly assume that the outputs are not required toBut the direct execution of DD is computable from its description.
correspond to the inputs.
>
Not as an input to HHH.
When HHH computes halting for DD is is only allowedIt is only ABLE to apply them.
to apply the finite string transformations specified
by the x86 language to the machine code of DD.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.