Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #166784
| 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 | <20220715180822.000061f6@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <JeidnSoS1rskH0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715164900.00006bca@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <N7ednc5HcpwLE0z_nZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> <20220715170340.00001838@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <aZudnWdIoajRAEz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 18:08 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
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.
/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