On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR <[email protected]> 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 > often. > I meant "There is no *problem*" Jason -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
