Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2/26/2025 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:It seems that Olcott does not understand the terminology. It has been proven by direct execution that the finite string given to HHH describes a program that terminates normally.Op 26.feb.2025 om 15:45 schreef olcott:We have only been talking abort normal termination of aOn 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:>Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:>On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact thatOn on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.
HHH emulates this DD.On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.>
You don't understand this simple entanglement.
>
Unless having no influence causes itself to
never terminate then the one influence that
it must have is stopping the emulation of this input.
>
>
If the influence is that it does not complete the simulation, but aborts it, then the programmer should understand that the simulated simulation has the same behaviour, causing halting behaviour.
C function for several weeks. Perhaps you have no
idea what "normal termination" means.
Introducing the concept of aborting a program before it can reach its return instruction to prove its 'non-termination' makes it even more vague.Aborting a program with halting behaviourWe have not been talking about halting for a long
time. This term has proven to be far too vague.
Normal termination of a C function means reaching
its "return" instruction. Zero vagueness.
Change of subject to avoid a honest discussion.does not change it into non- halting. It is childish to claim that when you close your eyes, things do not happen.You can't even keep track of what we are talking about.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.