Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2024-07-19 14:49:46 +0000, olcott said:*Until you understand that this is true*
On 7/19/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:This time I made a typo that is much worse than my usual typos.On 2024-07-18 14:18:51 +0000, olcott said:>>
When you are hungry you remain hungry until you eat.
Before HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation the directly
executed DDD() cannot possibly halt.
>
After you eat you are no longer hungry.
After HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation the directly
executed DDD() halts.
If DDD does not halt it indicates that HHH is faulty. Therefore the
interesting question is whether DDD halts, not when DDD halts.
Pro "when DDD halts" lege "when HHH halts".
*By your same reasoning*No, the reasoning must be differ. Infinite_Loop can be proven to halt
If Infinite_Loop() does not halt HHH is faulty.
by a simple inspection of a short code. Similar simple inspection of
DDD reveals that DDD does halt if HHH halts but not whether HHH halts.
Therefore the interesting question, needed to complete the proof, is
whether HHH halts. If that can be determined the question about DDD
is easy.
In other words if Infinite_Loop() is an actual infiniteNothing is the fault of HHH. If a program is faulty it is the fault
loop then this is all the fault of HHH.
of the author of the program. Usually an infinite loop is a fault
but that depends on the purpose and specification of the program.
Sometimes a program is faulty if it does terminate.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.