Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 13:56:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <26093f36c0567c98d7593257d1a2fb5fbe089d8f@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me> <v9hp66$ck4s$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9ic1b$f16v$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 13:56:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2522611"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 1929
Lines: 28

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:38:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/14/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-14 00:52:36 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>> In order to prove that the above specifies a non-halting behavour you
>> must prove that HHH(DDD) does not terminate.
What is wrong about that?

> That is the strawman error of reasoning.
Not at all. A strawman is a wrong presentation of opposing arguments.
There aren't even any arguments here.

> The focus of the post was to show that DDD emulated by HHH according to
> the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly reach its own "return"
> instruction.
Yes, and that was a direct reply. As Fred said, DDD could be replaced
by a direct call to HHH(HHH).

> By changing the subject you cheat.
You are avoiding questions.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.