Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Op 13.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:*YOU JUST DON'T GET THIS*On 8/13/2024 5:57 AM, Mikko wrote:Contradiction in terminus.On 2024-08-13 01:43:49 +0000, olcott said:>
>We prove that the simulation is correct.>
Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being aborted.
The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.
>
Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
non-halting behavior.
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
Input to HHH(DDD) is DDD. If there is any other input then the proof is
not interesting.
>
The behviour specified by DDD on the first page of the linked article
is halting if HHH(DDD) halts. Otherwise HHH is not interesting.
>
Any proof of the false statement that "the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
non-halting behaviour" is either uninteresting or unsound.
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
A correct simulation is not possible.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.