Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters -- Professor Hehner

On 7/14/2024 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-13 12:44:50 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/13/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-12 13:35:34 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/12/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

 In that situation you should use the symobls HHH₁, HHH₂, HHH₃, ...
so that you can use HHHᵢ when you say aothing about every one of them.
And the one more symbols for the one that runs forever.

 I did not want to say it as verbosely as that, yet your suggestion
would be clearer.

 For honest purposes clearer would be better. But understand that
different purposes mean different priorities.

 I made it clearer using your suggestions.

 Where is that clearer presentations?
 

And they should
not be defined to run DDD but whatever input is given.

 I certainly can't do that. People here use every excuse
they can to change the subject and then stay on this
changed subject and never get back to the point.

 Of course you can and should. No reason to expect them to protest less
if you make more errors.
 

 My current paper examines these three inputs at the C
source-code level in the simplest one first order.
 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
 It then examines the simplest possible pathological input
above at the assembly language level.

 Going to the assembly langage level does not add anything if the code
of HHH is not shown.

 Going to the assembly language level provides a directed
graph of control flow.

It also shows the final state that
is not shown at the C level.