Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:I am not even using the confusing term "halts".On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:(There are other deciders that are not termination analysers.)I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination analyzer.such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHHWhen we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH and not trying>typedef void (*ptr)();This is the only topic that I will discuss and any
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}
DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows that
HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
to get away with changing the subject to some other DD somewhere else
>then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming knows that noWell, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a decider.
instance of DD shown above simulated by any corresponding instance of
HHH can possibly terminate normally.
A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any input that mustYes, in particular itself is not such an input, because we *know* that
be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t have your cake and eat it
too.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.