Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 2024-05-02 18:35:19 +0000, olcott said:In other words the only way that we can tell that an infinite
On 5/2/2024 4:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Simple recursive simulation is not a non-halting behaviourolcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:>On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 4/30/24 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:
[ .... ]
>>When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer} to
the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we define halting
otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as halting.
>>Why?>That doesn't mean the machine reached a final state.
>Alan seems to believe that a final state is whatever state that an>
aborted simulation ends up in.
Only through your twisted reasoning. For your information, I hold to the
standard definition of final state, i.e. one which has no state following
it. An aborted simulation is in some state, and that state is a final
one, since there is none following it.
>On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:>You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination
isn't a final state.>Only if you try to define something that is NOT related to Halting, do
you get into that issue."The all new ideas are wrong" assessment.>
Simulating termination analyzers <are> related to halting.
Except you cannot define what such a thing is, and that relationship is
anything but clear.
When a simulating termination analyzer matches one of three
non-halting behavior patterns
(a) Simple Infinite loop
(b) Simple Infinite Recursion
(c) Simple Recursive Simulation
if the recursion is not infinite.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.