Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by
 a simple example in C
Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 08:59:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ebcf53bd90e1d4e1698be64dea76e69461c75a25@i2pn2.org>
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> <1007mp8$3r37u$1@dont-email.me>
 <1008jgl$j63$3@dont-email.me> <1008o88$1bg1$1@dont-email.me>
 <1008s18$5uqc$1@dont-email.me> <1008t5g$1bg1$2@dont-email.me>
 <1008tr4$66kl$2@dont-email.me> <100901g$1bg1$3@dont-email.me>
 <10090vl$6mor$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 13:08:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="746261"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <10090vl$6mor$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4258
Lines: 78

On 5/16/25 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/16/2025 10:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 17/05/2025 03:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2025 9:44 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2025 03:24, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When you dishonestly remove the context that you are
>>>>> replying to fools might think that your rebuttal has merit.
>>>>
>>>> The context you claim was 'dishonestly' removed is:
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>     return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> with which we are all too, too familiar.
>>>>
>>>> The context merely shows that the only information HHH receives is a 
>>>> pointer to a function.
>>>>
>>>> That's not enough for HHH to be able to do what you claim for it 
>>>> *within the rules of C*.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless there is also an interpreter also written in C.
>>
>> No, not even then, for reasons I have already explained.
>>
>>> Any competent C programmer would know that C programs
>>> can be simulated by C interpreters. If they don't know
>>> this then that are not competent.
>>
>> A C interpreter (eg CH or CINT, both of which have Wiki pages, in case 
>> you're interested) doesn't simulate C code. It interprets C code. You 
>> don't pass C code to HHH in the form of a char * - "void 
>> DDD()\n{\n\tHHH(DDD);\n\treturn;\n}\n", say - to HHH(). You pass a 
>> function pointer. All HHH() can do with that pointer value is:
>>
> 
> It is possible to create a C function that
> simulates the source-code of other C functions.
> The essential idea of this is a C interpreter.

WHich means you need to pass it the source code of the funciton.

> 
> The actual HHH uses x86 emulation that is way
> over most peoples heads. When I said that HHH
> simulates DDD reviewers are not free to ignore
> the word "simulate".

No, and the fact that you think x86 simulation is way over peoples heads 
just shows how little you understand about it.

> 
> They do this because they only glance at a
> couple of my words to artificially contrive
> some fake rebuttal.
> 

No, the rebuttals are not "fake". Your understanding of them is though.

Since you have admitted that your input violates the category 
requirements to be a valid input for a halt decider, all you have done 
is proving you just don't know what you are talking about. You need to 
keep on repeating your same points and not go into better explainations 
because you don't HAVE a better basis. To break down and look more basic 
will clearly reveal your errors, and my guess is you at least 
subconsciously know this, so you don't.

All this just ends up proving how ignorant you are of the field, that 
you don't actually care about what it true, and thus you feel ok about 
being just a pathological liar.