Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 7/20/24 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:Sure of course everyone knows that when you examinevoid DDD()I don't know where you got the false idea that "Termination Analyzers" were "Partial Halt Deciders", then most certainly are not.
{
HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
DDD();
}
>
(a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
this is a design requirement.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis for a description, they deal with the related problem of determining if the input program will halt for *ALL* inputs, not just a given one.
Yes, in computer science, where the building of partial Termination Analyzers is an ongoing project, they often just drop the assumed partial as everyone know the general problem is not universally solvable.
Also, the answer must be correct,
and the input must be a PROGRAM, which mean it includes ALL its code that it uses, so for DDD, include the code for HHH.
>But that is a DIFFERENT DDD then the one given to the HHH that aborted it emulation, and thus your logic is based on LYING.
(b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
aborts the simulation of its input or not.
>
(c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort
the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
never stop running.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.