quentron.com

[lancaIV]

Pardon,quentron-off topic :   http://www.grossone.com/arithmetic.html

Sincerely
                 CdL

[sarkeizen]

I was having the same thought as DTB, in that such a program could allow code to run but never hang the CPU and still run up to any point where the problem would exist in the code.

It's amazing how poor the average computer programmers knowledge is of computer science is (this means you lumen).   I feel like a law should be passed or something.

Anyway there's nothing to freak out about...if no algorithm exists to solve the halting problem it doesn't matter if you attempt to generate it by a genetic process or by thinking yourself or by getting a chicken to peck at the keyboard - there is no workable code because there is no algorithm for it to implement.  Maybe if you had a program which asked people to pray to Allah (swt) for each program's potential termination status and then reported it.   Or maybe you could write a program so the computer could pray to Allah (swt) themselves?

Conversely if an algorithm does exist then there's no reason, prima face to say that a genetic algorithm will do it better (especially since lumen has assured us all that it's not only solvable but it's EASY to solve).  Or maybe he's conceded at least it's non-trivial to design a program which solves the halting problem.

Anyway, again you have an ultra-simple question in front of you.  It concerns running your "control program" on a CPU without a privileged mode. So maybe you'll stop dragging your feet and answer it.  Instead of inventing new ways to confuse yourself.

[lumen]

It's amazing how poor the average computer programmers knowledge is of computer science is (this means you lumen).   I feel like a law should be passed or something.

Anyway there's nothing to freak out about...if no algorithm exists to solve the halting problem it doesn't matter if you attempt to generate it by a genetic process or by thinking yourself or by getting a chicken to peck at the keyboard - there is no workable code because there is no algorithm for it to implement.  Maybe if you had a program which asked people to pray to Allah (swt) for each program's potential termination status and then reported it.

Anyway, again you have an ultra-simple question in front of you.  It concerns running your "control program" on a CPU without a privileged mode. So maybe you'll stop dragging your feet and answer it.  Instead of inventing new ways to confuse yourself.

Are you looking for help on how to do this or are you just convinced that it's not possible?

[sarkeizen]

Are you looking for help on how to do this or are you just convinced that it's not possible?

I'm looking for you to answer the question instead of just running away all the time.  You are the biggest intellectual coward I have ever met.  You call me all sorts of names, constantly assert that you are absolutely right with no possibility of doubt at all...and you won't answer a tiny question about the subject you assert is so correct and in an area you assert you know so much about.  A question that would be trivial to anyone who is as confident as you claim to be.  Trivial for someone who KNOWS the problem is so easily solved.  Minuscule to someone who sees the problem so clearly.

Here it is again:

According to you a program which solves the halting problem can be implemented on any CPU.  Thus on a CPU without any privilege mode or any interrupts the only way you can run your control program is by having it act like an interpreter right?  Your program picks up an instruction and it's operands and then updates memory locations accordingly.  Right?

Is that not how the program would have to run on a machine without any privileged mode or any interrupts?

A simple "yes" or "no, and here's why" will do....

D'you think you can manage that? or are you really enjoying my attentions so much that you need to drag things on and on and on and on?  I'm flattered at having captured the heart of one so dim. Alas! lumen - I'm happily married.

[lumen]

I'm looking for you to answer the question instead of just running away all the time.  You are the biggest intellectual coward I have ever met.  You call me all sorts of names, constantly assert that you are absolutely right with no possibility of doubt at all...and you won't answer a tiny question about the subject you assert is so correct and in an area you assert you know so much about.  A question that would be trivial to anyone who is as confident as you claim to be.  Trivial for someone who KNOWS the problem is so easily solved.  Minuscule to someone who sees the problem so clearly.

Here it is again:

According to you a program which solves the halting problem can be implemented on any CPU.  Thus on a CPU without any privilege mode or any interrupts the only way you can run your control program is by having it act like an interpreter right?  Your program picks up an instruction and it's operands and then updates memory locations accordingly.  Right?

Is that not how the program would have to run on a machine without any privileged mode or any interrupts?

A simple "yes" or "no, and here's why" will do....

D'you think you can manage that? or are you really enjoying my attentions so much that you need to drag things on and on and on and on?  I'm flattered at having captured the heart of one so dim. Alas! lumen - I'm happily married.

An emulator or interpreter can not work because they only execute the code the same as the CPU would and is therefore prone to the same problems.
That's why I said it was a bad term for me to use not knowing if you knew much about computer programming.
Now I know that you know something about programming, but I feel you are lacking on low level assembly programming and hardware interfaces.

So let me ask you a question.
If you run a segment of code through the CPU and it completes, then could you assume the same code will always complete every time it's run?