Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)
Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 19:02:01 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me>
	<vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me> <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me> <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me> <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me> <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me> <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me> <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me>
	<as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4>
	<87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me> <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me>
	<vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me>
	<875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 04:02:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="302a6dd640940106301f9e87fdade96e";
	logging-data="2450542"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Lz2q7/52dXMAPwssKWMU9"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dtpURfZtxWPCCacmleZJ2GxEMhk=
	sha1:TfA5mWqL1Y9ByXNu4P4Wn1eM8Go=

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
> On 5/8/2025 6:54 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 5/8/2025 6:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 08/05/2025 23:50, olcott wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> If you are a competent C programmer
>>>> Keith Thompson is a highly-respected and very competent C
>>>> programmer.
>>>
>>> *Then he is just who I need*
>> No, what you need is someone who is an expert in mathematical logic
>> (I am not) who can explain to you, in terms you can understand and
>> accept, where you've gone wrong.  Some expertise in C could also
>> be helpful.
>
> The key gap in my proof is that none of the comp.sci
> people seems to have a slight clue about simple C
> programming.

You see, this is something you've gotten wrong, and you need somebody
who can explain that to you in terms you can understand and accept.

> void DDD()
> {
>   HHH(DDD);
>   return;
> }
>
> *THIS IS THE C PART THAT NO ONE HERE UNDERSTANDS*
> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "return" instruction.

Is there any reason you couldn't have written that as follows?

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

You could then talk about it not reaching its closing brace rather
than not reaching its "return" instruction.  BTW, it's correctly
called a "return statement" in C; dropping it would make it easier
to avoid your incorrect use of terminology.  (Assembly or machine
code has "instructions"; C has "statements" and "declarations".)

> DDD correctly simulated by HHH is the same thing
> as infinite recursion between HHH and DDD yet is
> implemented as recursive simulation.

Sure, infinite recursion is infinite, regardless of how it's
implemented, assuming it's implemented correctly.  That's so trivally
obvious that I simply don't believe that "the comp.sci" people are
failing to understand it -- though I can believe that you believe it.

>> I doubt that any such person exists, but only for reasons related
>> to you.
>> 

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */