Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
final state.
Again, we have no reply from you to this important point. You've
failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
can't.
When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer}
....
It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it would
most likely be useless and inconsequential. But since you fail to
define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.
.... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
halting.
Complete Balderdash. Define your "simulating termination analyzer",
or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.
int H(ptr x, ptr y); // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
(a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.
Before we can get into the computer science of a simulating
termination analyzer we must first have mutual agreement on
the software engineering of it.
ONLY when we mutually agree on the (a) point can we proceed to
the next point.
If we don't do it this way then everyone simply leaps to the conclusion
that I must be wrong without ever fully understanding what I am saying.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.