Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/5/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:Not necessarilty. As long as the the analyzer cannot determineOn 2024-05-04 13:56:27 +0000, olcott said:Do you understand that it is ridiculously stupid for a simulating
On 5/4/2024 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote:The recursion is infinite. The simulation by H is incomplete and finite.On 2024-05-03 11:55:15 +0000, olcott said:It is not actually infinite though because H recognizes the non-halting
On 5/3/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:The phrase "in other words" is not correct here as it means thatOn 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:When a simulating termination analyzer matches one of threeOn 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 anOnly through your twisted reasoning. For your information, I hold to the
aborted simulation ends up in.
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.Except you cannot define what such a thing is, and that relationship is
Simulating termination analyzers <are> related to halting.
anything but clear.
non-halting behavior patterns
(a) Simple Infinite loop
(b) Simple Infinite Recursion
(c) Simple Recursive Simulation
if the recursion is not infinite.
loop never halts is to simulate it until the end of time?
what follows means the same as what precedes, and that is not
true here.
For same loops the only wha to detect non-termination may be
to simulate to infinity but they can be considered exluded by
the term "simple" in (a).
There are repeating state non-halting behavior patternsPer (b) that is non-halting and indeed it is (though the
that can be recognized. These are three more functions
where H derives the correct halt status:
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
Infinite_Recursion(N);
}
execution may crash for "out of memeory").
behavior pattern, aborts the simulation and reports non-halting.
termination analyzer to simulate a non-terminating input forever?
Do you understand that it is ridiculously stupid for a simulatingIt is the exact same thing with D simulated by H on the basisThe loop is infinite. The simulation by H is incomplete and finite.
of the directly executed H(D,D).
It is not actually infinite though because H recognizes the non-haltingvoid Infinite_Loop()Per (a) that is non-halting and indeed it is.
{
HERE: goto HERE;
}
behavior pattern, aborts the simulation and reports non-halting.
termination analyzer to simulate a non-terminating input forever?
True, but you said it is.No it is not.It is the exact same thing with D simulated by H on the basisMaybe but it is an example of your non-halting pattern (c) as
of the directly executed H(D,D).
That was an example of an input that H correctly determinesint factorial(int n)Per (c) that is non-halting but in reality it is not.
{
if (n >= 1)
return n*factorial(n-1);
else
return 1;
}
Ergo, the rule (c) is wrong.
does halt.
presented above.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.