Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
Op 29.mrt.2025 om 20:03 schreef olcott:A termination analyzer cannot reject itself, yet it canOn 3/29/2025 10:23 AM, dbush wrote:When solving a problem, it is stupid to choose a tool that has a pathological relation with the problem.On 3/29/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:>On 3/28/2025 11:00 PM, dbush wrote:>On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:>>>
It defines that it must compute the mapping from
the direct execution of a Turing Machine
Which does not require tracing an actual running TM, only mapping properties of the TM described.
The key fact that you continue to dishonestly ignore
is the concrete counter-example that I provided that
conclusively proves that the finite string of machine
code input is not always a valid proxy for the behavior
of the underlying virtual machine.
In other words, you deny the concept of a UTM, which can take a description of any Turing machine and exactly reproduce the behavior of the direct execution.
I deny that a pathological relationship between a UTM and
its input can be correctly ignored.
>
When this pathological relationship changes this behavior
we cannot simply pretend that the behavior is not changed.
>
>
If I want to repair a hammer, it is stupid to use this same hammer to fix it.--
Similarly, to solve the question whether DDD halts, one can use direct execution, or a world-class simulator, or even HHH1, but it is stupid to choose a solver that has a pathological relation with this input, because it is guaranteed that it will give the wrong answer. (If it answers.)
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.