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: Sun, 18 May 2025 20:24:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <100e17m$194d7$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$9@dont-email.me> <1009lm9$b15q$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ceum$uvq0$1@dont-email.me> <87ecwl1s2p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <100dscu$18b5s$1@dont-email.me> <87v7pxzbp4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <100du9m$18m8u$1@dont-email.me> <100dvuj$18b5q$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 03:24:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="54427c6633a8689b841d1d48a1b07f55";
	logging-data="1348007"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NzqANhqa+MorDshU4uZyB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:I1DwOlllJ/XEdOpYByods5vU7o0=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250518-4, 5/18/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <100dvuj$18b5q$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/18/2025 8:02 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 19/05/2025 01:33, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/18/2025 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> 
> [Apologies for not snipping. This one was hard to know how best to edit 
> down.]
> 
>>>
>>>> On 18/05/2025 23:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> If they know C they should know that it's
>>>>>>    u32 HHH(void (*P)()), according to Halt7.c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It takes a pointer to a function that accepts no arguments and 
>>>>>> returns no
>>>>>> value.
>>>>> Yes, but I am surprised that you are being so modern!!  You used to
>>>>> favour C90 and didn't really care for anything more recent.
>>>>
>>>> I am just as surprised that you missed the distinction I was making, 
>>>> which
>>>> was between these:
>>>>
>>>> void HHH(void (*f)(void))
>>>> u32 HHH(void (*P)())
>>>>
>>>> Empty parentheses had nothing to do with my point. On line 16 we find:
>>>> typedef uint32_t u32;
>>>>
>>>> uint32_t != void.
>>>
>>> Yes, I got the distinction you were making, but I must have got confused
>>> about the referent of "it" in the part I quoted.  I was hoping to add
>>> to the discussion despite ignoring your main point.  Sorry.
>>>
>>
>> *Copied from the original post that he responded to*
>>
>> int DD()
>>   {
>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>>   }
> 
> Not so. The post I responded to was Message-ID: <1009lm9$b15q$1@dont- 
> email.me>
> 
> There was a lot of quoted material, none of which mentioned int DD(), 
> although it did mention a void DDD().
> 
> The only original material was:
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> No, there are peole who do know C but don't know that HHH is not
> void HHH(void (*f)(void)) {} and how therefore cannot tell that
> HHH does simulate DDD.
> 

It was stipulated that HHH does simulate DDD.
No need to check every little punctuation mark.

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