Hypothetical possibilities V2
Re: Hypothetical possibilities V2
Re: Hypothetical possibilities V2 Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Re: Hypothetical possibilities Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily True? --- AKA a Tautology Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily True? --- AKA a Tautology DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is *IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is *IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is *IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Why examine the halting problem using the x86 language? People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language