Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v8g0l3$24u77$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict correctly Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:56:02 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 44 Message-ID: <v8g0l3$24u77$2@dont-email.me> References: <v887np$gl15$1@dont-email.me> <v8a2j5$u4t6$1@dont-email.me> <v8asse$12hr3$2@dont-email.me> <v8aukp$12grj$1@dont-email.me> <v8b00m$12ojm$1@dont-email.me> <v8bchs$15ai5$1@dont-email.me> <v8bh32$15une$1@dont-email.me> <d89f03c5a605f010ec3c83c50137b983dc85848e@i2pn2.org> <v8bl2j$16ibk$2@dont-email.me> <tiuiaj5jf0jqcfcfntko5hufisp8mb93bm@4ax.com> <v8bu91$18b7k$2@dont-email.me> <ddb7a467da20b6a6bd90aee9735a62ae68cac50e.camel@gmail.com> <v8f0ni$204k7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fehe$22ege$1@dont-email.me> <v8fssh$24rl1$5@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 14:56:03 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c0ac17c3f9e00decd2248743b2f1a16"; logging-data="2259175"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zauCozworV7kFMIybzb/e" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:AwZd00359q90oQZQFU4iXptSB2Q= In-Reply-To: <v8fssh$24rl1$5@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 2746 Op 01.aug.2024 om 13:51 schreef olcott: > On 8/1/2024 2:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 01.aug.2024 om 05:51 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/31/2024 10:08 PM, wij wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 18:50 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is not supposed to be a general solution to the halting problem. >>>>> it only shows how the "impossible" input is correctly determined >>>>> to be non halting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But how do you determine it is non-halting? >>>> >>>> As I know you are even unable to define what 'halt' mean !!! >>>> >>> I have done this thousands of times and after someone >>> has read these thousands of times they say that I never >>> said it once. >>> >>> void DDD() >>> { >>> HHH(DDD); >>> return; >>> } >>> >>> int main() >>> { >>> HHH(DDD); >>> } >>> >>> If DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly >>> reach its return instruction then it never halts. >>> >>> >> >> But a correct simulation is impossible. > > When HHH does what-ever-the-hell the x86 semantics specifies > then HHH is correct. > But since HHH deviates from the semantics of the x86 language (by skipping instructions of a halting program) it is incorrect.