Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict correctly

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict correctly
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 02. Aug 2024, 10:28:39
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <v8i8s7$2ooui$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-08-01 11:51:45 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/1/2024 2:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.aug.2024 om 05:51 schreef olcott:
On 7/31/2024 10:08 PM, wij wrote:
On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 18:50 -0500, olcott wrote:
 It is not supposed to be a general solution to the halting problem.
it only shows how the "impossible" input is correctly determined
to be non halting.
 
 But how do you determine it is non-halting?
 As I know you are even unable to define what 'halt' mean !!!
 
I have done this thousands of times and after someone
has read these thousands of times they say that I never
said it once.
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 If DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its return instruction then it never halts.
 
 But a correct simulation is impossible.
 When HHH does what-ever-the-hell the x86 semantics specifies
then HHH is correct.
When HHH does not do what-ever-the-hell the x86 semantics specifies
the HHH is incorrect.
--
Mikko

Date Sujet#  Auteur
5 Jul 25 o 

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal