Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by
 a simple example in C
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 21:24:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <1008s18$5uqc$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> <1008o88$1bg1$1@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 04:24:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ea8251727358be87ec7627194d1f4d0";
	logging-data="195404"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mFzILVfV11uWL26IostYf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C+XxL8u2Iz7EQMWjmAxB/Bh7YgE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250516-6, 5/16/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <1008o88$1bg1$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/16/2025 8:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 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>
> 

Only damned liars would remove this key context.

>>>> 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.
> 

When you dishonestly remove the context that you are
replying to fools might think that your rebuttal has merit.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer