Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 7/3/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:THe actual question is whatever someone asks. However, if the question isOn 2025-07-03 02:50:40 +0000, olcott said:That is *not* the actual question.
On 7/1/2025 11:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:Either "no" (encoded as 0) or "yes" (encoded as any other number) is theOn Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:12:48 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:The most direct way to analyze this is that
On 6/30/25 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:No. A simulator does not have to run a simulation to completion if it can
PO just works off the lie that a correct simulation of the input is
different than the direct execution, even though he can't show the
instruction actually correctly simulated where they differ, and thus
proves he is lying.
The closest he comes is claiming that the simulation of the "Call HHH"
must be different when simulated then when executed, as for "some
reason" it must be just because otherwise HHH can't do the simulation.
Sorry, not being able to do something doesn't mean you get to redefine
it,
You ar4e just showing you are as stupid as he is.
determine that the input, A PROGRAM, never halts.
/Flibble
HHH(DDD)==0 and HHH1(DDD)==1 are both correct
because DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation and
DDD does not call HHH1(DDD) in recursive simulation.
wrong asnwer to the quesstion "does DDD specify a halting computation?".
HHH(DDD) is asked: Does your input specify a computation that halts?THat is the same question if the input specifies the computation as
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state, so NO.
HHH1(DDD) is asked: Does your input specify a computation that halts?The user's manual of HHH1 apparently dpecifies different encoding rules.
DDD correctly simulated by HHH1 reaches its own "return" statement final halt state, so YES.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.