Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 6/13/2025 4:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Irrelevant, because it is a verified fact that the input includes the code to abort and halt.Op 12.jun.2025 om 17:54 schreef olcott:It is ridiculously stupid to require a simulating terminationOn 6/12/2025 4:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 11.jun.2025 om 17:34 schreef olcott:*Counter-factual and apparently over-your-head*On 6/11/2025 10:04 AM, joes wrote:>Am Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:59:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:>On 6/11/2025 9:42 AM, joes wrote:>Am Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:11:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 6/11/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-06-10 16:10:49 +0000, olcott said:On 6/10/2025 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:On 2025-06-09 14:46:30 +0000, olcott said:Not when simulated.The fact that HHH reaches its own "return" statement final halt state>>>It only takes two simulations of DDD by HHH for HHH to correctlyI am no so stupid that I require a complete simulation of a>
non-terminating input.
Yes you are. You just express your stupidity in another way.
>
recognize a non-halting behavior pattern.
Either the pattern or the recognition is incorrect.
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state. This by itself *is* complete proof that
the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior.
It is also proof that HHH doesn't terminate.
>
proves that you are incorrect.
>
DDD correctly simulated by HHH proves beyond all
possible doubt the exact behavior that the input
to HHH(DDD) specifies.
No. hHH aborts prematurely.
>
When HHH aborts after it emulates N instructions of DDD,
this same correctly emulated DDD has never reached its
own "return" statement final halt state.
>
>
Wrong. The input for HHH is a pointer to code, including the part specifying the abort and halt.
World-class simulators show that more then N instructions must be simulated, including those within HHH. That HHH simulates only N instructions means that the abort is premature.
analyzer to simulating a non terminating input to its non-existent
end.
Why should I? I never claimed it could.That HHH never reaches the end of its simulation is a failure of HHH, not a property specified in the input.Then show ALL of the details of exactly how DDD correctly
simulated by HHH reaches its simulated "return" statement
final halt state.
It is like you are claiming that square circles exist andI never claimed a square circle exists. Apparently this subject hoes over your head.
refuse to draw one.
void DDD()But that is not a valid criteria. A failure to reach part of the reachable code that specifies the abort and halt, does not change the fact that this code includes the code to abort and halt and, therefore, specifies a halting program.
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
The input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior in
that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.