From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada? References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <461B52A6.20102@obry.net> <461BA892.3090002@obry.net> <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <1rbtw92apxpl1.1ednvo8v6oiq8$.dlg@40tude.net> <13tcswu59l28h.zxb26cabf9a0.dlg@40tude.net> <15k5b4j6za8ag.tpkuccinvzbd.dlg@40tude.net> <1jrh6o5yca0w.dqiviyjs01am.dlg@40tude.net> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:02:36 +0200 Message-ID: <0bhcr6kav7.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:GfT7pl/uGhja2r1aNLM9ON4HoJE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.224.234 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1177365281 88.72.224.234 (23 Apr 2007 23:54:41 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!storethat.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15243 Date: 2007-04-24T00:02:36+02:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 23:50:52 +0200, Markus E Leypold wrote: > >> You don't feel the need to justify the use of "trivial" for any >> actually existing program? > > Any actually existing program can be expressed with single natural number. How really non-surprising -- and absolutely unrelated to the topic. > Moreover, all programs which were ever written, as well as all ones which > *actually* will ever be, all together, again could be characterized by > another natural number. So can all buggy programs and all programs that don't do anything useful. I fail to see how the fact that there are countably inifinite programs programs justifies the use of "trivial" for the property you defined. If this oracle means what I suspect (i.e. that you maintain the position that all real existing programs are trivial) your choice of words ("trivial") is somewhat strange. It seems to be far removed from the ordinary use of the word "trivial". That means, I suspect you made up that definition just to justify your original blunder about programs on finite machines only being able to process a finite set of inputs. But perhaps you can still somehow alter course and make a suggestion how your definition of trivial relates to the common use of the word? Regards -- Markus