Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 3/24/2024 3:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Two is not many, considering that with Google for any invalid idea it is easy to find a several people with a master degree supporting it.Op 24.mrt.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:At least two software engineers with masters degrees in computer scienceCan an abort decider be defined that cannot be fooled by any pathological input?>
>
01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
>
Of all of the elements of the set of H(D,D) where H simulates its
input there are matched pairs of otherwise identical elements that
only differ by whether they abort their simulation or not.
>
The half of these that don't abort are incorrect because all deciders
must halt. This makes the other half correct about the abort/no abort
decision.
No. The other, aborting, half is just wrong, because it aborts when it is not needed. So, the half that aborts is wrong and it may be argued that it is better to not abort something that halts on its own and that
disagree.
Exactly what are you software engineering skills?I have been professionally programming since 1986 in several languages. (Non professionally I started programming in 1975). Since about 1990 I programmed in C and since about 2000 in C++.
I have been a professional C++ software engineer since Y2K.I'm sorry to hear that olcott has been so smart, but now he does not even sees what even a beginner sees.
therefore not responding is better than responding with a wrong answer. So, both halves are wrong, but the half that aborts is more wrong. It gives the wrong answer. The other half is also wrong, but it does not give a wrong answer, but does not respond.
>>I am very sorry to hear that.
I don't think an abort decider can be fooled by a pathological input.
>
>
>
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.