| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Mar 25 05:44PM -0500 On 3/25/2021 3:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > equivalent, then any *computation* defined in the 'x86 language' can be > performed by a Turing Machine. But not everything expressed in x86 code > constitutes a computation. If my halt deciding computation can be performed on a Turing machine then it necessarily meets the formal definition of a computation, right? When you try to tell me that black cats are not black I know that what you say is not true. >> My halt decider is expressed in the x86 language > But fails to meet the formal definition of a computation. This would mean that my halt deciding computation cannot be performed on a Turing machine, right? Since my halt deciding computation can be translated into the RASP computational model and performed on a RASP machine this would prove that it can be performed by a Turing machine, right? -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein |
| MrSpook_tlp4tgh2l3@8ihqvjzp9.gov: Mar 25 08:58AM On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:25:24 +0000 > typedef decltype(mulGuts(U1(), U2())) Result; >}; >but it does creep and it is horrible. I can't help thinking that if you need syntax that mangled perhaps you should revisit your design. |
| James Lothian <jameslothian1@gmail.com>: Mar 25 01:57PM >> but it does creep and it is horrible. > I can't help thinking that if you need syntax that mangled perhaps you should > revisit your design. I wouldn't need syntax as mangled as this if I weren't working around a deficiency in VS2019. James |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment