Re: What is wrong with Ada?

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:58:26 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:04 +0200, Markus E Leypold wrote:
>>> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>> 
>>>> I called it trivial because a valid program processing an infinite input
>>>> would not require *all* the input to finish. 
>> 
>>> According to your definition all real programs on real
>>> machines are "trivial".
>
> Yes, provided they are correct.

Well, that sentence doesn't parse in your world. You haven't defined
"correct" and can't yet, because you haven't specifications in your
world yet, only programs. Since you have programs/machines and defined
"trivial" as their property all real machines only do trivial data
processing. I don't see where "correct" comes in: You don't need it
since you didn't need it when defining trivial. I'm a bit surprised it
now turns up as a pre condition for applying the predicate trivial.

Would your answer "provided they are correct" to the statement "
According to your definition all real programs on real machines are
"trivial" perhaps mean I could do non-trivial data processing with
_incorrect_ programs? 

If so, I'd like to see an example of an incorrect program on a finite
machine that isn't trivial (i.e. has an infinite number of internal
states according to your definition).

Puzzled -- Markus