Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2025-06-28 13:48:36 +0000, olcott said:A termination analyzer is required to determine the
On 6/28/2025 6:50 AM, Mikko wrote:Call a spade a spade if you want to be understood. If you constantlyOn 2025-06-27 23:26:07 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 6/26/2025 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:>>On 2025-06-25 14:40:35 +0000, olcott said:>
>>>
A termination analyzer correctly determines the halt
status of an input program specification for every
input that this program can take. A program specification
taking zero inputs is merely the simpler case of this
same algorithm.
So you do. Perhapts it is a matter of taste but honest people
prefer to call a spade a "spade" and not an "earthmover" or a
"manually operated earthmover".
Every input that a program can take logically includes
programs that take no inputs.
Yes. But the meaning of "termination analyzer" excludes analyzers
that don't analyze programs that do take inputs.
Line 506 has the original: u32 H(ptr P, ptr I)
Line 1243 has the original: void P(ptr x)
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
*I had to dumb it down to this*
>
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
DDD();
}
>
*And people still do not understand*
changing words to other words that are no better you have no reason
to expect any understanding. You can expect people to understand
Common Language and terms defined in the same message or in the
message you are replying to but not ordinary words with unusual
random meanings.
*Termination Analysis without the Tears*That does not contradict what I said. But the algorithm on the sixth
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~zkincaid/pub/pldi21.pdf
>
On page three a code snippet is analyzed that takes
no input and its not even a function.
page (1301) illustrates my point that ability to hadle programs with
input is essential (though the purpose of the algorighm is to
illustrate someting else).
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.