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 22:49:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <10090vl$6mor$2@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>
 <1008s18$5uqc$1@dont-email.me> <1008t5g$1bg1$2@dont-email.me>
 <1008tr4$66kl$2@dont-email.me> <100901g$1bg1$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 05:49:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ea8251727358be87ec7627194d1f4d0";
	logging-data="219931"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/PE+ftVjt0DoEPawaJAgY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yYCPmSxV5FCsWA7kBhkTzRXnO5Q=
In-Reply-To: <100901g$1bg1$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250516-6, 5/16/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/16/2025 10:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 17/05/2025 03:55, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/16/2025 9:44 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2025 03:24, olcott wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>>
>>>> When you dishonestly remove the context that you are
>>>> replying to fools might think that your rebuttal has merit.
>>>
>>> The context you claim was 'dishonestly' removed is:
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>     return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> with which we are all too, too familiar.
>>>
>>> The context merely shows that the only information HHH receives is a 
>>> pointer to a function.
>>>
>>> That's not enough for HHH to be able to do what you claim for it 
>>> *within the rules of C*.
>>>
>>
>> Unless there is also an interpreter also written in C.
> 
> No, not even then, for reasons I have already explained.
> 
>> Any competent C programmer would know that C programs
>> can be simulated by C interpreters. If they don't know
>> this then that are not competent.
> 
> A C interpreter (eg CH or CINT, both of which have Wiki pages, in case 
> you're interested) doesn't simulate C code. It interprets C code. You 
> don't pass C code to HHH in the form of a char * - "void 
> DDD()\n{\n\tHHH(DDD);\n\treturn;\n}\n", say - to HHH(). You pass a 
> function pointer. All HHH() can do with that pointer value is:
> 

It is possible to create a C function that
simulates the source-code of other C functions.
The essential idea of this is a C interpreter.

The actual HHH uses x86 emulation that is way
over most peoples heads. When I said that HHH
simulates DDD reviewers are not free to ignore
the word "simulate".

They do this because they only glance at a
couple of my words to artificially contrive
some fake rebuttal.

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