Re^3: Equivalency of Code

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.

Comment on Re^3: Equivalency of Code

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. --???	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Equivalency of Code
by Boots111 (Hermit) on Feb 08, 2005 at 03:48 UTC

sub f1{ while(1) { } }

sub f2{ for(; ;) { } }

Boots

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

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom