Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies.
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Equivalency of Code

by dragonchild (Archbishop)
on Feb 07, 2005 at 17:08 UTC ( [id://428747]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Equivalency of Code
in thread Equivalency of Code

Actually, you'll hit a recursion limit before you run into your logical contradiction.

Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Equivalency of Code
by Boots111 (Hermit) on Feb 08, 2005 at 03:48 UTC
    dragonchild~

    You are assuming that same calls the functions it is passed as arguments.

    The theoretical same function cannot evaluate its arguments, as it cannot know that its arguments halt. After all, sub f1{ while(1) { } } and sub f2{ for(; ;) { } } should be considered the same...

    Also, for the purposes of computability "deciding" a problem means that the program must halt with an answer of either "yes" or "no". (Well, classically accepting or rejecting, but that is just semantics).

    Boots
    ---
    Computer science is merely the post-Turing decline of formal systems theory.
    --???

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://428747]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others learning in the Monastery: (3)
As of 2024-04-19 01:55 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found