From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada? References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <461BA892.3090002@obry.net> <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <1rbtw92apxpl1.1ednvo8v6oiq8$.dlg@40tude.net> <13tcswu59l28h.zxb26cabf9a0.dlg@40tude.net> <15k5b4j6za8ag.tpkuccinvzbd.dlg@40tude.net> <1176796706.9578.18.camel@localhost> <109tsryjbjwzz.3mmbgnp1pjjo$.dlg@40tude.net> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:46:28 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:GGaW0fQ9xgCF8rJIGdX5Lrsg+Qg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.220.162 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1176806332 88.72.220.162 (17 Apr 2007 12:38:52 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!newsfeed0.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!news.musoftware.de!news.karotte.org!news2.arglkargh.de!news.visyn.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15080 Date: 2007-04-17T12:46:28+02:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" 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" 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