Re: Can you please verify that the analysis of these C functions is correct?

On 6/17/2024 9:11 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 17.06.2024 um 05:47 schrieb olcott:

To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of
the C programming language and what an x86 emulator does.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
   return;
}
>
int main()
{
   H0(Infinite_Loop);
   H0(Infinite_Recursion);
   H0(DDD);
}
>
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that when H0
emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion, and
DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can terminate
normally.
>
When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as non-
halting.
>
*My POD24 diagnosis is reducing the time I have left to work on this*
Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>

 Everything correct, no further questions allowed.
 

The reason that I have to come to the C/C++ forum with these
things is that C/C++ software engineers understand that code
does do what this code actually does do.
On the comp.theory forum people disagree that code does do what
it actually does do. They believe that their own misconceptions
carry more weight than the actual verified facts.
I say this full well knowing that some C functions do not
meet the requirements of Turing computable functions. The
functional result of my C functions <is> Turing computable.
*Entirely written in C besides x86utm.cpp*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer