Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not
 halt
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:56:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <v45ive$3tpr9$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v44dle$3i5jo$2@dont-email.me> <v44jvn$3jnc8$3@dont-email.me>
 <v44qin$3g17f$5@i2pn2.org> <v44ru8$3m841$3@dont-email.me>
 <v44usm$3g17f$6@i2pn2.org> <v45fq4$3sv37$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45h1l$3h642$1@i2pn2.org> <v45h88$3tjc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45i42$3h641$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:56:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6820c6f88a6ab7f47362bcc86c8cb3a";
	logging-data="4122473"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XFgxsP2yeMLCH2a8smfJk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DJHBeLG8zUvoXJNYqbEVbIJgJjQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v45i42$3h641$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3682

On 6/9/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01   void 
>>>>>>>> HHH(ptr
>>>>>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>>>>>> 02   {
>>>>>>>> 03     P(I);
>>>>>>>> 04     return;
>>>>>>>> 05   }
>>>>>>>> 06 07   void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>> 08   {
>>>>>>>> 09     HHH(x, x);
>>>>>>>> 10     return;
>>>>>>>> 11   }
>>>>>>>> 12 13   int main()
>>>>>>>> 14   {
>>>>>>>> 15     HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>>>> 16   }
>>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return 
>>>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>>> thus never halt.
>>>>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>>>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
>>>>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite 
>>>>>> recursion is
>>>>>> before proceeding.
>>>>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you. 
>>>>
>>>> OK then we are done talking.
>>>>
>>>>> You instead could explain how you
>>>>> can call a simulation that differs from the direct execution 
>>>>> "correct".
>>>>> Or why H and HH are different.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
>>>> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
>>>>
>>>> I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never
>>>> result in any mutual agreement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect logic, so you 
>>> are threatening to take your ball and go home.,
>>>
>>
>> We must go through the steps one-at-a-time and have mutual agreement
>> on each step to eliminate miscommunication intentional or otherwise.
>>
> 
> So, when someone questions what you mean by something, you need to 
> clearify the meaning of it.
> 

When someone "questions what you mean by something"
by calling me a liar they may go to actual Hell.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer