Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Op 02.jun.2025 om 07:12 schreef olcott:If Mike is having a hard time on this then it mustOn 6/1/2025 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:But a finite recursion, because the input includes the code to abort and halt. That HHH is unable to reach this final 'ret' only shows that using a simulator for the analysis is in this case the wrong decision, because it fails the whole specification of the input.On 2025-05-31 19:21:10 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 5/31/2025 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:>Olcott is doing this:>
>
int main()
{
DDD(); // DDD calls HHH
}
>
This is incorrect as it is a category (type) error in the form of
conflation of the EXECUTION of DDD with the SIMULATION of DDD: to
completely and correctly simulate/analyse DDD there must be no execution
of DDD prior to the simulation of DDD.
>
Olcott should be doing this:
>
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
I would have left it there except that many dozens of
reviewers have pointed out that they believe that HHH
is supposed to report on the behavior of its caller.
A halt decider is required to report on the computation it is asked
about. There is no requirement that a halt decider knows or can find
out whether it is called by the program about which is required to
report. Consequently, whether the computaton asked about calls the
decider is irrelevant.
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
Therefore it is wrong to say:That was not a rebuttal it was a failure to sufficiently
>because explaining the words show the errors in the suggestion of these words.
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.