On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if
> I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first
> programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on.
> Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible programme, it
> then adds the second instruction of the first programme, the
> second instruction of the second programme, and so on.
If it did work like this, it would never get to run the second instruction
of any program, since there is a countable infinity of possible programs.
> This is why it's called a dovetailer, I believe, and stops it running
> into problems with non-halting programmes, or programmes that would crash,
> or various other contingencies...
This is addressed by not trying to run any one program to its completion,
instead it gives each program it has generated up to that point some time
on the CPU.
> This isn't intrinsic to the UD, which could in principle write the first
> programme before it moves on to the next one - but it allows it to avoid
> certain problems caused by having a programme that writes other programmes.
There is no program with the UD encountering programs that themselves
instantiate other programs. Indeed, the UD encounters itself, infinitely
> ...I think. I'm sure Bruno will let me know if that's wrong.
PS I like the "while (true)" statement. What would Pontius Pilate have made
> of that? :-)
:-) Good question, I haven't the faintest idea. I could have used "while
(i == i)" but then if someday Brent's paralogic takes over, it might fail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.