Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- From: "Charles A. Crayne" <ccrayne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:34:27 -0700
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:27:02 +0000 (UTC)
Alex McDonald <alex_mcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:Then your machine and its programming language would have to be Turing
:incomplete.
Strictly speaking, all real machines are Turing-incomplete, since they do
not have infinite storage, although the specific example I have in mind is,
indeed, one which forces finite looping.
My purpose, however was not to suggest that any such machine should
actually be build, but rather to demonstrate that it is not safe to assume
Turing completeness for any given combination of machine architecture and
programming language, let alone the additional constraints imposed by
specific hardware configurations, operating systems, and compilers.
-- Chuck
.
- References:
- Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- From: wolfgang kern
- Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- From: randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- From: Charles A. Crayne
- Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- From: randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- From: Charles A. Crayne
- Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- From: Alex McDonald
- Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- Prev by Date: Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- Next by Date: Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- Previous by thread: Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- Next by thread: Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|