Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 7/29/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:Perhaps you should add a pointer to the verification report when youOn 2024-07-28 23:54:54 +0000, olcott said:Even when I make my ideas 100% concrete people still deny
On 7/28/2024 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:There is no "must" there. You may present your ideas whichever way youOn 2024-07-27 18:20:19 +0000, olcott said:My ideas must be anchored in fully specified running software
On 7/27/2024 1:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:You also need the conventional ideas of halting and halt decider.olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:Until you take the conventional ideas of
Stopping running is not the same as halting.I think you're wrong, here. All your C programs are a stand in for
DDD emulated by HHH stops running when its emulation has been aborted.
This is not the same as reaching its ret instruction and terminating
normally (AKA halting).
turing machines. A turing machine is either running or halted. There is
no third state "aborted".
(a) UTM
(b) TM Description
(c) Decider
and combine them together to become a simulating partial halt decider.
The latter is largely a combination of the conventional ideas of
decider and halting but also involves the conventional of
prediction, so you need that, too.
Although the conventional idea of testing is not relevant to the construction of a simulating partial halt decider it is helpful to presentation of the
result, especially if your target audience contains software engineers. If your target audience is mainly mathematicians the convnetional idea of proofs is more useful because in that case most of your presentation must be proofs.
otherwise the false assumptions made by computer science people
remain hidden.
think is the best for your purposes.
the verified facts.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.