| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v9pgpc$1qm46$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 09:42:52 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <v9pgpc$1qm46$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me> <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org> <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me> <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org> <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me> <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org> <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me> <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org> <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me> <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org> <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me> <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me> <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org> <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me> <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me> <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me> <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me> <v9nkhd$1ertd$1@dont-email.me> <v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 08:42:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9908bab7c540c727a2f7f1c5d0b763e0";
logging-data="1923206"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19w4CjBM9lYOcqAmB5YsG4J"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JrZmC0OFYEOjyqIOdWfVTZ+IH0Q=
Bytes: 2840
On 2024-08-16 14:09:40 +0000, olcott said:
> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>>
>>> I must go one step at a time.
>>
>> That's reasonable in a discussion. The one thing you were discussing
>> above is what is the meaning of the output of HHH. Its OK to stay
>> at that step until we are sure it is understood.
>>
>
> void DDD()
> {
> HHH(DDD);
> return;
> }
>
> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH
> can reach the "return" instruction of DDD it is
> construed that this instance of DDD never halts.
Whaatever you "construe" does not change the fact that DDD specifies
a halting computation if HHH does.
> For three years now at least most reviewers insisted
> on disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language.
If you claim that HHH halts and DDD doesn't you disagree with
the semantics of both C and x86 languages.
--
Mikko