| DFS <nospam@dfs.com>: Sep 04 05:34PM -0400 On 3/12/2022 5:06 PM, Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote: > ParallelFor() that scales very well > Thank you, > Amine Moulay Ramdane. cuckoo! |
| olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>: Sep 04 11:33AM -0500 On 9/3/2022 12:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > Red Herring. Simulate(P,P) is ALWAYS the same (for a given P) > irrespective of "where" that simulation is done, at least if H is a > computation, and if it isn't it can't be a decider. Although H must be a computation all sequences of configurations that do not halt are not computations**. The behavior of H is the same no matter where it is invoked. The behavior of P need not be (and indeed is not) the same. When P is invoked from main its behavior depends on the return value of H. When P is correctly simulated by H the return value from H is unreachable from every simulated P. This conclusively proves that the execution of P from main() and the correct simulation of P by H are not computationally equivalent. That you (and others) continue to ignore this obvious difference really seems dishonest. Ubiquity, an ACM publication November 2010 http://ubiquity.acm.org 1 ©2010 Association for Computing Machinery Ubiquity Symposium What is Computation? Opening Statement by Peter J. Denning ** The standard formal definition of computation, repeated in all the major textbooks, derives from these early ideas. Computation is defined as the execution sequences of halting Turing machines (or their equivalents). An execution sequence is the sequence of total configurations of the machine, including states of memory and control unit. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1880066.1880067 -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer |
| olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>: Sep 04 08:41AM -0500 On 9/4/2022 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncommutative_ring > Except both are 5 * 5 so the commutative property isn't needed. > You are just being a DICK. (2 + 3) * 5 == 25 // 2+3== 5 then 5* 5==25 2 + (3 * 5) == 17 // 3*5==15 then 2+15==17 If you can't even correctly compute 8th grade arithmetic how can you possibly have sufficient knowledge of more complex computations? -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer |
| Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp>: Sep 04 04:07PM +0100 On Sun, 4 Sep 2022 08:41:52 -0500 > 2 + (3 * 5) == 17 // 3*5==15 then 2+15==17 > If you can't even correctly compute 8th grade arithmetic how can you > possibly have sufficient knowledge of more complex computations? Except Richard didn't imply that, Richard implied that multiplication is commutative for real numbers, which it is, so this is just an obvious strawman you lying cunt. /Flibble |
| 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