Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 16. Jul 2024, 08:06:32
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <v7565o$15n84$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-07-15 13:15:29 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/15/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-14 14:13:41 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/14/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-13 12:22:24 +0000, olcott said:
Deciders are required to (thus must) halt.
The semantics of the x86 language does not require that, nor that any of
the programs is a decider.
The subject our our conversion is a simulating termination
analyzer
No, it is not. As stated on the Subject line, the subject is correctness of
the rejection of DDD as non-halting.
AKA partial halt decider
That "AKA" is incorrect. The term "termination analyzer" means a program
of a certain kind and the term "partial halt decider" means a program of
a different kind.
Not for the subset of inputs that we are examining.
Yes with all inputs. Their input spaces are distinct and they are required
to answer a different question.
-- Mikko
…