Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not
 halt
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:23:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v45h1l$3h642$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44dle$3i5jo$2@dont-email.me> <v44jvn$3jnc8$3@dont-email.me>
 <v44qin$3g17f$5@i2pn2.org> <v44ru8$3m841$3@dont-email.me>
 <v44usm$3g17f$6@i2pn2.org> <v45fq4$3sv37$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:23:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3709058"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v45fq4$3sv37$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3675
Lines: 67

On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01   void HHH(ptr
>>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>>> 02   {
>>>>> 03     P(I);
>>>>> 04     return;
>>>>> 05   }
>>>>> 06 07   void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>> 08   {
>>>>> 09     HHH(x, x);
>>>>> 10     return;
>>>>> 11   }
>>>>> 12 13   int main()
>>>>> 14   {
>>>>> 15     HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>> 16   }
>>>>> 17
>>>>
>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return statement
>>>>> thus never halt.
>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>>
>>> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite recursion is
>>> before proceeding.
>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you. 
> 
> OK then we are done talking.
> 
>> You instead could explain how you
>> can call a simulation that differs from the direct execution "correct".
>> Or why H and HH are different.
>>
> 
> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
> 
> I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never
> result in any mutual agreement.
> 

I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect logic, so you are 
threatening to take your ball and go home.,

You have a problem that multiple people are calling you out on.

Of course there will be no mutual agreement, because you are asking 
people to agree to your lies that you think you can prove with your own 
circular arguements.

You have proven that you are not above lying about things and claiom as 
veriried truths things you have no way to actually show.

At some point, you need to realize that all you circular arguments where 
you base your "proof" and assuming something that isn't actually true to 
be true that implies your claim are actually worthless, and start to 
look at the actual facts and try to see if the is anything useful in 
your discard pile of POOP.

The arguements keep on going in circles as every time someone challenges 
you on one of your made up facts, you need to just to the lies that you 
made to try to support it. and when that gets challenged, to the lies 
that that is based on, and this just goes around in your unsound logic loop.