Re: The clueless are commenting on SHDs

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
analysed halting.  Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather
than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far
as the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

/Flibble

And what makes it different?

Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that was
being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as nothing
is looking at it, it is just running.

You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual running
of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.

The only person fucking confused is you, mate.

There's no call for such vulgarities, here.

In his post here, Richard was 100% right, as he is with virtually
everything he posts here.  I don't like the way he expresses himself so
frequently, but that doesn't mean he isn't right.

Being right is not a matter of opinion.  It is a matter of holding to
the truth.  PO fails continually to do this.  It seems you are little
better, at least in matters mathematical.

/Flibble

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).