Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Proving the: Simulating termination analyzer Principle
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 03:25:46 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <86tt71fuxh.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <vss56v$375du$2@dont-email.me> <vss91c$3b1no$1@dont-email.me> <vssabb$3aqnp$2@dont-email.me> <vssavl$3b2j0$3@dont-email.me> <20250405153728.395@kylheku.com> <vsse5t$3gbj1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 12:25:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="041fd418ef8b485cdd75dbfc4b2fa6be";
	logging-data="752477"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18j/xT/nmbQ6KMXsk0TiVZFBV6ykMjvep8="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NVngCzFsfNlhg9FvGnTLAumHLRI=
	sha1:Zvx5JEf3AejtunYXh4eQI0kbkYQ=
Bytes: 2727

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

> On 05/04/2025 23:42, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
>> On 2025-04-05, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/04/2025 23:20, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> The difference between us is that I know it and you don't.
>>
>> Olcott resides in a fortress he built out of bricks that were
>> specially ordered from Dunning and Kruger's website.
>> You're not getting through.
>
> Well, no.  On the other hand, the discussion has in places driven
> me to the literature and has thus in its own way been
> educational.  For example, I was surprised to discover that
> although Turing's 1936 paper does deal with the Halting Problem,
> he doesn't actually use that term, which didn't surface until
> 1952.  I also stumbled on a 1972 paper on incomputability by Tony
> Hoare and Donald Allison - well worth the read, and I was amused
> by its somewhat prescient opening paragraph: "[...] programmers
> have been known to attempt solutions to problems which are
> probably unsolvable;  the existence of such problems should be of
> interest to all programmers."  Clearly, 53 years ago, they already
> had Olcott nailed.

I agree these discoveries are interesting, but the subject still
isn't one that is suitable for comp.lang.c.  A good way to avoid
these long pointless discussions is not to respond to postings
that are not suitable to comp.lang.c, except to point out that
they are not suitable to comp.lang.c.  And for any given poster,
don't respond to unsuitable postings more often than once a month.