Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 2024-08-04 12:33:20 +0000, olcott said:typedef void (*ptr)();
On 8/4/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:That is not stipulated above. Anyway, that stipulation would notOn 2024-08-03 13:48:12 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 8/3/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said:>
>*This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
>
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
emulates itself emulating DDD
>
*UNTIL*
>
HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.
The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as
correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is
not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is
non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words.
>
[Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?]
Who here is too stupid to know that whether DDD can reach its
own return instruction depends on code not shown below?
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
It is stipulated that HHH is an x86 emulator the emulates
N instructions of DDD where N is 0 to infinity.
alter the correctness of my answer.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.