XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
On 11/10/2021 3:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Olcott is barking up the wrong tree re infinite recursion: there
is only a need to detect a single recursive call into the halt decider
and signal an exception.
Yes, I figured that out. That eliminates the need for static local data
thus allowing the halt decider to be a pure function.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
That is why I needed my source-code analyzer to provide the exact number
of parameters to every function.
As long as the currently executing function (H) is called again with the
same parameters then we know that this call will be infinitely recursive
unless this infinite recursion is aborted at some point.
When H aborts this call to itself made by P then P never reaches its
final state. If H never aborts this call made by P then P never reaches
its final state. This conclusively proves that H can abort this call to
itself and report that its input never halts.
Here is the reference to my NumParams system:
On 10/23/2021 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
[I finally completed my lexical analyzer generator (needed by my halt
decider)]
This system uses a DFA lexical analyzer to recognize
the pattern of function declarations. This pattern is
specified as 15 DFA states. The output is a C header
file that looks up the function name specified in the
COFF object file and returns its number of parameters.
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V2)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
Why? Because infinite recursion is valid
program behavior.
/Flibble
--
This message is a troll.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)