Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
*That no counter-example to the following exists proves that it is true*"correctly" is used in the definition of "correct": this
*That no counter-example to the following exists proves that it is true*
*That no counter-example to the following exists proves that it is true*
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
_DD()
[00001e12] 55 push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51 push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behaviorbasically mentally sane.
of the directly executed DD(DD) is
requiring a violationThere is not proper definition above.
of the above definition of correct simulation.
Halt deciders are required to compute the mapping from theirif it could be done it would work. Big deal...
input to their own accept or reject state based on the behavior
that this input specifies.
Simulating halt deciders are not allowed to simulate non-halting
inputs for more than a finite number of steps because all deciders
must halt.
The basic strategy of a simulating halt decider is to simulate
an input until (a) The input halts or (b) it correctly determines
that the correctly simulated input cannot possibly stop running
unless its simulation has been aborted.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.