Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:Can you actually reply to what I said?Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDDIf let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
state.
H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of aWhich it doesn't fulfill.
non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly predict
what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.
A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the semanticsIt's not about the individual steps, but their number. An incomplete or
of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient toOnly if you fall into an infinite loop.
correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.
Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required to correctlyBeside the point. The input is DDD which halts iff HHH aborts.
predict the behavior of their inputs, thus the behavior of non-inputs is
outside of their domain.
Any word on this?A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been aIt just doesn't halt, that's why HHH can't do it. And if HHH aborts, it
contradiction in terms.
becomes unnecessary. Whether it does can't depend on the simulation
level - all H's abort or none.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.