Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.

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.

that accepts a finite string of x86 code as specifying halting behavior
or rejects this finite string. Deciders are required to halt thus must
abort the emulation of any input that would prevent this.

 However, that is not sufficient. The decider must not accpet inputs that
its specification does not specify as acceptable and must not reject inputs
that its specification does not specify as rejectable. As you call your
program a "partial halt decider" you should also specify how it is partial,
i.e., what inputs it is required to answer the same whay as a halt decider
and what it may do with the other inputs.
 

Partial halt decider / termination analyzer HHH has these
inputs in its domain.
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
This is only hard when you are trying to be as disagreeable
as possible.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer