Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2025-04-20 05:14:08 +0000, olcott said:If you run into a self-contradictory expression and
On 4/19/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:Every syntactically valid input describes a computation that eitherOn 2025-04-18 16:19:23 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 4/18/2025 8:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:>On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:>
>On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:>I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and>
have thus solved the halting problem
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank.
Well done!
>
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.
Partial deciders are a thing,
Yes they are and termination analyzers only need
be correct on at least one input.
Even in situations where an analyzer cannot determine the right answer
it must not give the wrong answer. Not halting is OK, and so is to say
that the answer cannot be determined.
Cases of semantically invalid inputs must be rejected
as erroneous.
halts or does not halt and therefore is always semantically valid.
A halt decider cannot reject any input.
The requirement to give the--
correct answer applies only to syntactically valid inputs. Otherwise
it need not halt but if it does it is free to give any answer.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.