Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #166786
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) |
| Message-ID | <20220715182802.0000170e@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <20220715164900.00006bca@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <N7ednc5HcpwLE0z_nZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> <20220715170340.00001838@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <aZudnWdIoajRAEz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715180822.000061f6@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 18:28 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 18:08:22 +0100
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:00:59 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7/15/2022 11:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:58:14 -0500
> > > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 7/15/2022 10:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:07:36 -0500
> > >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 7/15/2022 9:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:19:59 -0500
> > >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 7/15/2022 7:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:46:23 -0500
> > >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 1:23 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:41:06 -0500
> > >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 5:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 16:02:35 -0500
> > >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 3:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:02:21 -0500
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 2:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 14:19:38 -0500
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an explanation of a key new insight into
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem provided in the language of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering. Technical computer science
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms are explained using software engineering
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms. No knowledge of the halting problem is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is based on fully operational software executed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the x86utm operating system. The x86utm
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operating system (based on an excellent open
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source x86 emulator) was created to study the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details of the halting problem proof
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-examples at the much higher level of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction of C/x86.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt decider
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H(P,P) simulates its
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input we can see that: (1) Function H() is called
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from P(). (2) With the same arguments to H().
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) With no instructions in P preceding its
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invocation of H(P,P).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above shows that the simulated P cannot
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. Because H can see the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same (1)(2)(3) that we see H aborts its simulation
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P and rejects P as non-halting.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is the problem of determining, from a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description of an arbitrary computer program and an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, whether the program will finish running, or
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved in 1936
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a general algorithm to solve the halting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem for all possible program- input pairs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot exist.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For any program H that might
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine if programs halt, a "pathological"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program P, called with some input, can pass its
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own source and its input to H and then
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H predicts P
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and P implement the exact pathological
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to each other as described above.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because H(P,P) does handle this case the above
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem undecidable input template has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been refuted.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When this halt deciding principle understood to be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct* A halt decider must compute the mapping
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from its inputs to an accept or reject state on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of the actual behavior that is actually
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by these inputs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then (by logical necessity) this implements that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle* Every simulating halt decider that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulates its input until it correctly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicts that this simulated input would never
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally, correctly rejects this input as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *H is a Pure function*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus implements a *Computable function*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus H is Turing computable.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You forgot to mention infinite recursion which I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose is progress.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have proved that H(P,P) == 0 is correct.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have shown that H/P does implement the HP's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible input" template.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore I have refuted all of the halting problem
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs that rely on this template.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Equating pathological input with non-halting is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous: you are only doing that because your broken
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> solution treats it as "infinite recursion". There is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no recursion in [Strachey 1965] and the HP proofs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> based on it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no recursion in any of the conventional proofs
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> only because no one ever previously bothered to fully
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> examine how a simulating halt decider would address
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> these otherwise "impossible" inputs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have shown that a simulating halt decider needn't be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> recursive in nature:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> You sure do make it easy to review your work.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> "When the simulator detects the call to H in P it
> > >>>>>>>>>> forks the simulation into a non-halting branch"
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> There is an infinite set of cases where this overly
> > >>>>>>>>>> simplistic criteria gets the wrong answer.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> That is neither an honest review or any kind of rebuttal:
> > >>>>>>>>> I have told you before: assertions made without evidence
> > >>>>>>>>> can be dismissed without evidence.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> If you claim there are an infinite number of cases where
> > >>>>>>>>> it gets the wrong answer then it shouldn't be too hard
> > >>>>>>>>> for to provide ONE case backing up your claim.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Sure:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> > >>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>> static int count = 3;
> > >>>>>>>> count--;
> > >>>>>>>> if (!count) goto exit;
> > >>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> > >>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> > >>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> > >>>>>>>> exit:
> > >>>>>>>> return;
> > >>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> int main()
> > >>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> > >>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Nope; you seem to have forgotten that my decider is not
> > >>>>>>> recursive in nature: my decider will correctly determine
> > >>>>>>> that that input is pathological so will signal an exception.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> /Flibble
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The above terminates normally so your decider gets the wrong
> > >>>>>> answer.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is a pathological input so neither halts nor doesn't halt:
> > >>>>> pathological input is INVALID so the correct "answer" is to
> > >>>>> signal an exception.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> /Flibble
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So you don't know how static variables work?
> > >>>> I am not surprised.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> void P(ptr x)
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> static int count = 0;
> > >>>> if (count++ >= 2) goto exit;
> > >>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> > >>>> if (Halt_Status)
> > >>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> > >>>> exit:
> > >>>> return;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> int main()
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P,P));
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _Pm()
> > >>>> [0000141e](01) 55 push ebp
> > >>>> [0000141f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> [00001421](03) 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> > >>>> [00001424](05) a100000000 mov eax,[00000000]
> > >>>> [00001429](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> > >>>> [0000142c](06) 8b0d00000000 mov ecx,[00000000]
> > >>>> [00001432](03) 83c101 add ecx,+01
> > >>>> [00001435](06) 890d00000000 mov [00000000],ecx
> > >>>> [0000143b](04) 837dfc02 cmp dword [ebp-04],+02
> > >>>> [0000143f](02) 7c02 jl 00001443
> > >>>> [00001441](02) eb1b jmp 0000145e
> > >>>> [00001443](03) 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> > >>>> [00001446](01) 52 push edx
> > >>>> [00001447](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > >>>> [0000144a](01) 50 push eax
> > >>>> [0000144b](05) e8defcffff call 0000112e
> > >>>> [00001450](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>> [00001453](03) 8945f8 mov [ebp-08],eax
> > >>>> [00001456](04) 837df800 cmp dword [ebp-08],+00
> > >>>> [0000145a](02) 7402 jz 0000145e
> > >>>> [0000145c](02) ebfe jmp 0000145c
> > >>>> [0000145e](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> > >>>> [00001460](01) 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> [00001461](01) c3 ret
> > >>>> Size in bytes:(0068) [00001461]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _main()
> > >>>> [0000146e](01) 55 push ebp
> > >>>> [0000146f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> [00001471](05) 681e140000 push 0000141e
> > >>>> [00001476](05) 681e140000 push 0000141e
> > >>>> [0000147b](05) e8aefcffff call 0000112e
> > >>>> [00001480](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>> [00001483](01) 50 push eax
> > >>>> [00001484](05) 685f050000 push 0000055f
> > >>>> [00001489](05) e820f1ffff call 000005ae
> > >>>> [0000148e](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>> [00001491](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > >>>> [00001493](01) 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> [00001494](01) c3 ret
> > >>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [00001494]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> > >>>> address address data code language
> > >>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> > >>>> [0000146e][00102462][00000000] 55 push ebp
> > >>>> [0000146f][00102462][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> [00001471][0010245e][0000141e] 681e140000 push 0000141e
> > >>>> [00001476][0010245a][0000141e] 681e140000 push 0000141e
> > >>>> [0000147b][00102456][00001480] e8aefcffff call 0000112e
> > >>>>
> > >>>> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:11250e
> > >>>> Address_of_H:112e
> > >>>> [0000141e][001124fa][001124fe] 55 push ebp
> > >>>> [0000141f][001124fa][001124fe] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> [00001421][001124f2][90909090] 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> > >>>> [00001424][001124f2][90909090] a100000000 mov eax,[00000000]
> > >>>> [00001429][001124f2][90909090] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> > >>>> [0000142c][001124f2][90909090] 8b0d00000000 mov ecx,[00000000]
> > >>>> [00001432][001124f2][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> > >>>> [00001435][001124f2][90909090] 890d00000000 mov [00000000],ecx
> > >>>> [0000143b][001124f2][90909090] 837dfc02 cmp dword
> > >>>> [ebp-04],+02 [0000143f][001124f2][90909090] 7c02 jl
> > >>>> 00001443 [00001441][001124f2][90909090] eb1b jmp
> > >>>> 0000145e [0000145e][001124fa][001124fe] 8be5 mov
> > >>>> esp,ebp [00001460][001124fe][00001217] 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> [00001461][00112502][0000141e] c3 ret
> > >>>> H: End Simulation Input Terminated Normally
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [00001480][00102462][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>> [00001483][0010245e][00000001] 50 push eax
> > >>>> [00001484][0010245a][0000055f] 685f050000 push 0000055f
> > >>>> [00001489][0010245a][0000055f] e820f1ffff call 000005ae
> > >>>> Input_Halts = 1
> > >>>> [0000148e][00102462][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>> [00001491][00102462][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > >>>> [00001493][00102466][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> [00001494][0010246a][00000000] c3 ret
> > >>>> Number of Instructions Executed(1317) == 20 Pages
> > >>>
> > >>> For this particular stack trace I notice that the function
> > >>> symbol at the top of it is Pm not P which suggests to me one of
> > >>> two things:
> > >>
> > >> I already had a P so I renamed it to Pm so it would not disturb
> > >> my existing code. When I changed all the Pm references to your
> > >> name I forgot one.
> > >
> > > Then I suggest you check the output of compilation/linking is
> > > actually initializing static variables correctly. Are you even
> > > using a linker or are you just executing an object file? Static
> > > data normally goes into a separate data segment during the linking
> > > process.
> > >
> > > /Flibble
> > >
> >
> > I haven't used static data in such a long time that I forgot the
> > compiler does not allocate any space for static variables unless
> > they have been initialized to a non-zero value.
> >
> > void Pm(u32 x)
> > {
> > static int count = 0x777;
> > if (count++ > 0x777) goto exit;
> > int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> > if (Halt_Status)
> > HERE: goto HERE;
> > exit:
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Pm, (u32)Pm));
> > }
> >
> >
> > _Pm()
> > [00000a1a](01) 55 push ebp
> > [00000a1b](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > [00000a1d](03) 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> > [00000a20](05) a107030000 mov eax,[00000307]
> > [00000a25](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> > [00000a28](06) 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> > [00000a2e](03) 83c101 add ecx,+01
> > [00000a31](06) 890d07030000 mov [00000307],ecx
> > [00000a37](07) 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> > [00000a3e](02) 7e02 jng 00000a42
> > [00000a40](02) eb1b jmp 00000a5d
> > [00000a42](03) 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> > [00000a45](01) 52 push edx
> > [00000a46](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > [00000a49](01) 50 push eax
> > [00000a4a](05) e8ebfdffff call 0000083a // call H
> > [00000a4f](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > [00000a52](03) 8945f8 mov [ebp-08],eax
> > [00000a55](04) 837df800 cmp dword [ebp-08],+00
> > [00000a59](02) 7402 jz 00000a5d
> > [00000a5b](02) ebfe jmp 00000a5b
> > [00000a5d](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> > [00000a5f](01) 5d pop ebp
> > [00000a60](01) c3 ret
> > Size in bytes:(0071) [00000a60]
> >
> > _main()
> > [00000a6a](01) 55 push ebp
> > [00000a6b](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > [00000a6d](05) 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a // push address of P
> > [00000a72](05) 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a // push address of P
> > [00000a77](05) e8befdffff call 0000083a // call H
> > [00000a7c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > [00000a7f](01) 50 push eax
> > [00000a80](05) 680b030000 push 0000030b
> > [00000a85](05) e8d0f8ffff call 0000035a
> > [00000a8a](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > [00000a8d](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > [00000a8f](01) 5d pop ebp
> > [00000a90](01) c3 ret
> > Size in bytes:(0039) [00000a90]
> >
> > machine stack stack machine assembly
> > address address data code language
> > ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> > ...[00000a6a][0010137b][00000000] 55 push ebp
> > ...[00000a6b][0010137b][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > ...[00000a6d][00101377][00000a1a] 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a
> > ...[00000a72][00101373][00000a1a] 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a
> > ...[00000a77][0010136f][00000a7c] e8befdffff call 0000083a
> > New slave_stack at:201427
> >
> > Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored
> > at:21142f ...[00000a1a][0021141b][0021141f] 55 push ebp
> > ...[00000a1b][0021141b][0021141f] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > ...[00000a1d][00211413][90909090] 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> > ...[00000a20][00211413][90909090] a107030000 mov eax,[00000307]
> > ...[00000a25][00211413][90909090] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> > ...[00000a28][00211413][90909090] 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> > ...[00000a2e][00211413][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> > ...[00000a31][00211413][90909090] 890d07030000 mov [00000307],ecx
> > ...[00000a37][00211413][90909090] 817dfc77070000 cmp dword
> > [ebp-04],00000777
> > ...[00000a3e][00211413][90909090] 7e02 jng 00000a42
> > ...[00000a42][00211413][90909090] 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> > ...[00000a45][0021140f][00000a1a] 52 push edx //
> > push address of P
> > ...[00000a46][0021140f][00000a1a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > ...[00000a49][0021140b][00000a1a] 50 push eax //
> > push address of P
> > ...[00000a4a][00211407][00000a4f] e8ebfdffff call 0000083a //
> > call H New slave_stack at:24be4f
> > ...[00000a1a][0025be43][0025be47] 55 push ebp
> > ...[00000a1b][0025be43][0025be47] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > ...[00000a1d][0025be3b][90909090] 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> > ...[00000a20][0025be3b][90909090] a107030000 mov eax,[00000307]
> > ...[00000a25][0025be3b][90909090] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> > ...[00000a28][0025be3b][90909090] 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> > ...[00000a2e][0025be3b][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> > ...[00000a31][0025be3b][90909090] 890d07030000 mov [00000307],ecx
> > ...[00000a37][0025be3b][90909090] 817dfc77070000 cmp dword
> > [ebp-04],00000777
> > ...[00000a3e][0025be3b][90909090] 7e02 jng 00000a42
> > ...[00000a40][0025be3b][90909090] eb1b jmp 00000a5d //
> > jmp to exit
> > ...[00000a5d][0025be43][0025be47] 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> > ...[00000a5f][0025be47][00000904] 5d pop ebp
> > ...[00000a60][0025be4b][00000a1a] c3 ret
> > ...[00000a7c][0010137b][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > ...[00000a7f][00101377][00000001] 50 push eax
> > ...[00000a80][00101373][0000030b] 680b030000 push 0000030b
> > ---[00000a85][00101373][0000030b] e8d0f8ffff call 0000035a
> > Input_Halts = 1
> > ...[00000a8a][0010137b][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > ...[00000a8d][0010137b][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > ...[00000a8f][0010137f][00100000] 5d pop ebp
> > ...[00000a90][00101383][00000004] c3 ret
> > Number of Instructions Executed(27278)
> >
> >
>
> Still seems wrong: post increment of the static variable should ensure
> that it does NOT goto exit but instead should call H which should
> presumably cause your "infinite recursion detected" bollocks to
> manifest.
OK, I've looked at your assembly trace and it is recursing into Pm from
H and then halting but I am not sure what you are trying to prove?
Again [Strachey 1965] and associated proofs are not recursive in nature.
/Flibble
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 14:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 20:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 15:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 23:30 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:41 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 07:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 01:46 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:48 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 13:06 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 15:32 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:18 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:58 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 17:03 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:08 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:04 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:17 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:41 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:04 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:11 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:28 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:33 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <Big.Dick@olcott.crap> - 2022-07-15 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:38 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:56 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:36 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:47 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:12 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 21:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:39 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 00:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 06:36 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 10:15 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 10:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 08:33 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:21 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 13:27 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 21:53 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:09 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:32 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:06 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:16 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:24 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:32 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:35 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:39 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:45 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:43 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:46 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:45 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:44 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:05 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:07 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:18 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:19 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:25 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:15 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 17:24 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:53 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 00:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:56 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:22 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:51 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:29 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <bigdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 22:42 +0100
csiph-web