Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own
 "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 10:00:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <103p034$tj08$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103mrs1$ar3e$1@dont-email.me> <103nc57$esoq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 17:00:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c5709712fc7771c125bfe4c60a9c3b1";
	logging-data="969736"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dEP+1FkFfa9FvvRBfdhmt"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mZck/tkURo/XU7snaNBE8n6hN6U=
In-Reply-To: <103nc57$esoq$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250628-2, 6/28/2025), Outbound message

On 6/27/2025 7:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2025 20:36, olcott wrote:
>> I am only here for the validation of the behavior
>> of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>
>> I have included proof that the people on comp.theory
>> lied about this at the bottom.
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    DDD();
>> }
>>
>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
>> and returns 0.
>>
>> On 6/27/2025 12:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>  > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com
>>  > wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> I know that DDD .... simulated by HHH cannot
>>  >> possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement
>>  >> final halt state because the execution trace
>>  >> conclusively proves this.
>>  >
>>  > Everybody else knows this, too, and nobody has
>>  > said otherwise. *The conclusion is that the*
>>  > *simulation by HHH is incorrect*
>>  >
>>
>> *That last sentence is an intentional falsehood*
> 
> Well, people here use the term "simulation" in a number of ways, right?  

*There is only one correct way*

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

The correct simulation of DDD by HHH means that HHH simulates
DDD and then emulates itself simulating DDD a number of times
according to the semantics of C.

Everyone here knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement.
Most everyone on comp.theory lies about this.

> Like I've pointed out to you on several occasions.  Maybe you should 
> consider a simple misunderstanding over terminology before assuming bad 
> intentions.
> 

After three years on this same point a simple misunderstanding
has been ruled out.

> So what does Alan mean by "the simulation by HHH is incorrect", 
> exactly?  (And why do you think it is incorrect?)
> 

He is simply lying. Most of the reviews of my work are
counter-factual dogmatic assertions utterly bereft of
any supporting reasoning.

> That is a question for PO, rather than Alan, since it is PO who claims 
> Alan is lying...
> 
> Mike.
> 


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