Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: John Smith Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 03:20:37 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 10 Message-ID: References: <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 03:20:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83860e4324238056892f5ef29ec401be"; logging-data="652848"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Tz084dYSaSzTtBNMia+8f" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:47fBSy2yv/dqJapwn+r1me2kV5Y= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 1638 On 4/06/24 20:02, olcott wrote: > Those words are dead obviously correct about how a partial simulation > does correctly determine the halt status of this function: > > void Infinite_Recursion2(u32 N) > { >     H(Infinite_Recursion2, (ptr)N); > } Does Infinite_Recursion2 halt?