Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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: Sat, 17 May 2025 00:04:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <10095d6$73dt$3@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>
 <10090vl$6mor$2@dont-email.me> <1009266$1bg1$4@dont-email.me>
 <10093pv$73dt$1@dont-email.me> <10094n4$1bg1$5@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 07:04:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6ea8251727358be87ec7627194d1f4d0";
	logging-data="232893"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18znqOHXf/laH5qw3ROVnrl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mAwT5KrDBir7dleUAbsT3kOCdMU=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250516-6, 5/16/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <10094n4$1bg1$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4100

On 5/16/2025 11:52 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 17/05/2025 05:37, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/16/2025 11:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2025 04:49, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No. You clearly have no idea what an interpreter is.
>>>
>>> A C interpreter translates C, just as a C compiler translates C, the 
>>> difference being that the compiler writes down the translation (like 
>>> a book translator in a publishing house) while the interpreter says 
>>> it out loud, so to speak (like an interpreter at a United Nations 
>>> meeting).
>>>
>>> In each case, the input is C, not machine code.
>>>
>>>> The actual HHH uses x86 emulation that is way
>>>> over most peoples heads.
>>>
>>> Clearly not a C interpreter, then.
>>>
>>
>> Modern language are a hybrid between compiling
>> and interpreting. Java compiles to byte code.
> 
> Non sequitur. Your program is neither a compiler nor an interpreter. It 
> doesn't compile C to byte code or anything else because you don't give 
> it any C to compile.
> 
>> Interpreters translate code line-by-line and immediately execute each 
>> one in real-time, without a separate compilation phase. The 
>> interpreter effectively runs and translates the program 
>> simultaneously. This means changes to the code can take effect 
>> instantly, without waiting for compilation. But this flexibility comes 
>> at a performance cost relative to compiled programs. 
> 
> All correct. Well read and accurately quoted.
> 
>> https://thelinuxcode.com/interpreters-c-programming/
> 
> It's hard to fathom how you could have read the explanation on that Web 
> page and yet somehow continue to believe that you have written a C 
> interpreter.
> 

Did I ever say anything like that?  No!
I didn't even write the x86 emulator.

I integrated an x86 emulator into a multi-tasking
operating system named x86utm.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

We can easily imagine what the behavior
of DDD correctly simulated by HHH is
including HHH emulating itself emulating DDD.


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