Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/17/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:No, it is not. I would know if it were.On 2024-05-17 07:25:52 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:*I updated my wording*
Op 17.mei.2024 om 03:15 schreef olcott:A "proven fact" without a proof is not worse than a "verified fact"The following is self-evidently true on the basis of theNote that olcott defines 'verified fact' as 'proven fact', but he is unable to show the proof. So, it must be read as 'my belief'.
semantics of the C programming language.
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 return 0;
13 }
In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
specified by the x86 instructions of D.
This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
Any H/D pair matching the above template where
D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls
cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt.
*This is a simple software engineering verified fact*
without a verification.
It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
of the semantics of the C programming language.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.