Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 6/5/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:That is not what "non-halting" means. Anything said about "DDD emulatedOn 2025-06-04 15:00:07 +0000, olcott said:As long as DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
On 6/4/2025 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:We can ignore irrelevant facts. But if you ignore relevant requirementsOn 2025-06-02 05:12:26 +0000, olcott said:You can say these things only by making
On 6/1/2025 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:If it does then the "input" is not DDD, which specifies a haltingOn 2025-05-31 19:21:10 +0000, olcott said:void DDD()
On 5/31/2025 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:A halt decider is required to report on the computation it is askedOlcott is doing this:I would have left it there except that many dozens of
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);
}
reviewers have pointed out that they believe that HHH
is supposed to report on the behavior of its caller.
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.
{
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*
behaviour if HHH is a decider.
sure to ignore the verified facts.
you can't prove that your soliution is correct.
its own "return" instruction final halt state then
DDD is non halting even if it is never simulated.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.