Re: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies

On 2024-06-19 13:47:17 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/19/2024 4:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

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.
 

 OK so if you flat out don't have the mandatory prerequisites
there is no sense continuing our conversion. My impression
was that you understood these things quite well.

People oftehn get the impression that I understand quite well
whatever I happen to talk about. The probable reason is that
I prefer to say only what I know and understand and to leave
the rest to others.
About the particular topic of subject lines, nobody has pointed out
any defects in my understanding. Perhaps my understanding is good
enough or perhaps they just don't care.
--
Mikko