Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106828
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt |
| Date | 2024-06-09 19:13 +0000 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <v44usm$3g17f$6@i2pn2.org> (permalink) |
| References | <v44dle$3i5jo$2@dont-email.me> <v44jvn$3jnc8$3@dont-email.me> <v44qin$3g17f$5@i2pn2.org> <v44ru8$3m841$3@dont-email.me> |
Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01 void HHH(ptr
>>> P, ptr I)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 P(I);
>>> 04 return;
>>> 05 }
>>> 06 07 void DDD(int (*x)())
>>> 08 {
>>> 09 HHH(x, x);
>>> 10 return;
>>> 11 }
>>> 12 13 int main()
>>> 14 {
>>> 15 HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>> 16 }
>>> 17
>>
>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return statement
>>> thus never halt.
>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>
> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
> Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite recursion is
> before proceeding.
Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you. You instead could explain how you
can call a simulation that differs from the direct execution "correct".
Or why H and HH are different.
--
joes
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:19 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:07 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 17:59 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:23 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 19:13 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:02 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:26 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:41 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:56 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:10 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:36 -0400
D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 23:09 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:33 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 08:40 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:27 -0500
csiph-web