Sujet : Re: Correcting the definition of the halting problem --- Computable functions
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 25. Mar 2025, 22:29:11
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <bec56cbb36a8107632b0433b26025d55251b9217@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:01:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 3/25/2025 3:47 AM, joes wrote:
A pure simulator can not limit the number of steps. Also III doesn't
halt in, say, 3 steps. Why should III call a different instance that
doesn't abort, when it is being simulated?
The fact that the same states in the program-under-test keep repeating
such that the program-under-test cannot possibly reach its own final
halt state proves that program-under-test does not halt.
They don't repeat, though, not in the same stack frame. And the test
program is part of the program under test. Can you answer my question?
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.