1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Hypothetical possibilities V2

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jul 23 10:20:43 2024
    On 2024-07-22 16:08:31 +0000, olcott said:

    void DDD()
    {
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
    }

    int main()
    {
    HHH(DDD);
    }

    Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
    (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
    (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.

    We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design requirement that HHH must itself halt.

    We also know that any simulation that must be aborted to prevent the
    infinite execution of the simulator is necessarily a non-halting input.

    What was wrong in the original "Hypothetical possibilities"?
    How is V2 fixed?

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Jul 25 11:47:47 2024
    On 2024-07-23 14:32:36 +0000, olcott said:

    On 7/23/2024 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-07-22 16:08:31 +0000, olcott said:

    void DDD()
    {
       HHH(DDD);
       return;
    }

    int main()
    {
       HHH(DDD);
    }

    Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
    (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
    (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.

    We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design
    requirement that HHH must itself halt.

    We also know that any simulation that must be aborted to prevent the
    infinite execution of the simulator is necessarily a non-halting input.

    What was wrong in the original "Hypothetical possibilities"?
    How is V2 fixed?


    I don't know. One of the readers got confused so I rewrote it.

    What did you change in ordet to avoid confusion?

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)