Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: 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 15:43:52 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <80aa46a1ad3397065e575771d1ebe57f6a5c5588.camel@gmail.com>
References: <103mrs1$ar3e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 09:43:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b79204b0ebef8fa28c9a803dae9806f1";
	logging-data="778494"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+YAPnVbArJlSMCTlPkvZG9"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kM+PUmwTbVnKIxGrQj85X+0z+/A=
In-Reply-To: <103mrs1$ar3e$1@dont-email.me>

On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 14:36 -0500, olcott wrote:
> I am only here for the validation of the behavior
> of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.

The definition of HHH is missing.
(Don't bother answering this question. We know what you would say.)

> I have included proof that the people on comp.theory
> lied about this at the bottom.
>=20
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>=20
> void DDD()
> {
> =C2=A0=C2=A0 HHH(DDD);
> =C2=A0=C2=A0 return;
> }
>=20
> int main()
> {
> =C2=A0=C2=A0 HHH(DDD);
> =C2=A0=C2=A0 DDD();
> }
>=20
> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern.=C2=A0

HHH(DDD) will run in infinite loop, which conforms to Halting Problem proof=
..

> When
> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
> and returns 0.

This looks like a problem specification, but you said "Halting Problem" is
incorrect. Peter Olcott's Own Problem is never clear.

> On 6/27/2025 12:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> =C2=A0> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com
> =C2=A0> wrote:
> =C2=A0>
> =C2=A0>> I know that DDD .... simulated by HHH cannot
> =C2=A0>> possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement
> =C2=A0>> final halt state because the execution trace
> =C2=A0>> conclusively proves this.
> =C2=A0>
> =C2=A0> Everybody else knows this, too, and nobody has
> =C2=A0> said otherwise. *The conclusion is that the*
> =C2=A0> *simulation by HHH is incorrect*
> =C2=A0>
>=20
> *That last sentence is an intentional falsehood*

Actually, it is olcott who lies. The evidence keeps accumulating for years.
Because the evidences (olcott's posts) show that olcott knows what the HP s=
ays,
he deliberately and very stubbornly wants to conclude differently by trying=
=20
every possible way (for years, and think he will hit the target).

Because olcott is so Computer-Science-Stupid (He doesn't understand the=20
meaning of logic-IF. He can't write a TM that computes the length of its=C2=
=A0
input. The proof of a piece of C program is its compiled assembly,...)=C2=
=A0
to lie?

I prefer to say olcott deliberately lies, because he does experiment with a
real program (where he tried various ways to make it interpret-able as what=
 he
claims) he knows what happens and makes false reports (not what has actuall=
y
happened, like this post, he knows what is inappropriate and not good to hi=
s
claim) to 'prove' his claim even thought there is no logical connection=C2=
=A0
(always like to saying "a white dog", while pointing to a black cat).=C2=A0
It is still so, hardly to see olcott posts real thing instead of confusing
equivocal arguments.