Re: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies

On 2024-06-18 16:45:42 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/18/2024 11:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-18 16:30:46 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/18/2024 11:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-17 03:33:50 +0000, olcott said:
 

To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of
the C programming language and what an x86 emulator does.
 Unless every single detail is made 100% explicit false assumptions
always slip though the cracks. This is why it must be examined at
the C level before it is examined at the Turing Machine level.
 typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);
 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
 void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
   return;
}
 int main()
{
   H0(Infinite_Loop);
   H0(Infinite_Recursion);
   H0(DDD);
}
 Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that when H0
emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion, and
DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can terminate
normally.
 When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as non-
halting.

 The subject line is incorrect. The OP of "Simulating termination analyzers
for dummies" should tell what a "simulating termination analyzer" is.
The OP of this thread does not.
 

 I state the prerequisites if you don't have them
then you cannot understand. If you have them then
what I say is self-evidently true.

 What you sais ooes not include what the subject line promised.
 

 If all that you know is C and what and x86 emulator does
then you do obtain the gist of what a simulating termination
and analyzer does.

I am not in your target audience (dummies who have good knowledge
of C and x86 emulator) so what I know or understand is outside of
the scope of this discussion.

Because most people only glance at a couple of my words before
forming their rebuttal I had to make it overly concise.

If there is an error in those couple of words then there is no
need to discuss the rest.
--
Mikko