Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v276pg$2459k$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 12:08:00 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 46 Message-ID: <v276pg$2459k$1@dont-email.me> References: <v26b2t$1rdu0$1@dont-email.me> <v270q1$22vhs$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 11:08:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dbf1b225f2871bff3da7815f4eb7b472"; logging-data="2233652"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3BWuFz0ujsCVVeypcGRGR" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:eOmgBcI3slvZ2lzKRvri6QJPTcw= Bytes: 2343 On 2024-05-17 07:25:52 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said: > Op 17.mei.2024 om 03:15 schreef olcott: >> The following is self-evidently true on the basis of the >> semantics of the C programming language. >> >> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function >> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x); >> 01 int D(ptr x) >> 02 { >> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x); >> 04 if (Halt_Status) >> 05 HERE: goto HERE; >> 06 return Halt_Status; >> 07 } >> 08 >> 09 int main() >> 10 { >> 11 H(D,D); >> 12 return 0; >> 13 } >> >> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly >> emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order >> specified by the x86 instructions of D. >> >> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H >> in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling >> H(D,D) in recursive simulation. >> >> Any H/D pair matching the above template where >> D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls >> cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt. >> >> *This is a simple software engineering verified fact* >> > > Note that olcott defines 'verified fact' as 'proven fact', but he is > unable to show the proof. So, it must be read as 'my belief'. A "proven fact" without a proof is not worse than a "verified fact" without a verification. -- Mikko