Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by
 a simple example in C
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 02:20:08 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <1008o88$1bg1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <bc6f0f045212bdfb7f7d883426873a09e37789ea@i2pn2.org>
 <1005u6v$3cpt2$1@dont-email.me> <1005v0p$3b07v$1@dont-email.me>
 <10063u0$3dmiv$1@dont-email.me> <1006on8$3l9t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <1007kgq$3qb7l$9@dont-email.me> <1007mp8$3r37u$1@dont-email.me>
 <1008jgl$j63$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 03:20:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="445299cc285a28acbbdaee421187330b";
	logging-data="44545"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mgjcimNljwz15NBhpi8A7vn9EXrGkc6IQVAnPf0DtnA=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OTx8pnEeOxcbJclaXmSR1WFRXtQ=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <1008jgl$j63$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3067

On 17/05/2025 00:59, olcott wrote:
> On 5/16/2025 10:48 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/05/2025 16:10, olcott wrote:

<snip>

>>> Anyone that knows C can tell that when HHH does simulate
>>> DDD correctly that it keeps getting deeper in recursive
>>> simulation until aborted or OOM error.
>>
>> Anyone who knows C knows that there isn't much HHH can do with 
>> the pointer value it's given. It can call DDD:
>>
>> (*p)();
>>
> 
> Sure when you make sure to totally ignore crucial
> words

The crucial words - *so* crucial that you keep on repeating them 
- are 'Anyone who knows C'.

You don't.

> then by using the strawman error on these dishonestly
> changed words they are easy to rebut.

I didn't change your words; I just rebutted them.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the 
informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one 
actually under discussion."

When you said "Anyone who knows C" (as you have said very often), 
you yourself opened the discussion.

If you don't want people to attack your woeful understanding if 
the language, don't make the claim that you know the language.

> On the other hand when honest C programmers see
> those words they will think of something like a C
> interpreter written in C is doing the simulation.

If you are claiming to have written a C interpreter, that's a 
huge claim without any evidence whatsoever to support it.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within