Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:43:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 144
Message-ID: <vpocg4$2pfkd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7be3$jug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7r8d$36ra$3@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$i5ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <voahc5$m3dj$8@dont-email.me> <vocdo9$14kc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me> <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me> <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me>
 <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me> <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me> <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me>
 <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me> <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vore4m$9ddo$1@dont-email.me> <vpkq6t$22eec$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpl0h8$23vks$4@dont-email.me> <vpl3b4$24nse$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpla7l$25vp2$1@dont-email.me> <vplitb$27kuo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vplvle$29cod$1@dont-email.me> <vpm2c5$29obh$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpm2p7$29cod$3@dont-email.me> <vpm3a9$2dkrt$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpm44k$29cod$4@dont-email.me> <vpm4fo$2dkrt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vpn4iv$2is4r$1@dont-email.me> <vpn8dc$2jkdj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 01:43:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a93f6a3455369601392e9e0d36d9a046";
	logging-data="2932365"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+RdpK/z8UPHt1tSSAi39XX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iApB4rho4LTATjcZWl0biCVjTHY=
In-Reply-To: <vpn8dc$2jkdj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6673

On 2/26/2025 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/26/2025 7:22 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 2/25/2025 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/25/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2025 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/2025 9:45 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 8:52 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 12:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof or pointer to proof below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
>>>>>>>>>>>> own "return" instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That this may be beyond your technical skill level.
>>>>>>>>>>>> is less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10();
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int F(uintptr_t p);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>>>>>>>>>    return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above does specify that no_numbers_greater_than_10 
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by F
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
>>>>>>>>>>> own "return" instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That this may be beyond your technical skill level
>>>>>>>>>>> is less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finally you made something that was not wrong in several 
>>>>>>>>>> different ways.
>>>>>>>>>> So what is your point?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good.  So now looking again at the code, this time showing the 
>>>>>>>> implementation of F:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10();
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int F(uintptr_t p)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    uintptr_t ptr = (uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10;
>>>>>>>>    uintptr_t i = p ^ ptr;i
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am never going to attempt to deal with this convoluted bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's XORing the input value with the address of 
>>>>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10.  It allows F to both accept the 
>>>>>> address of no_numbers_greater_than_10 as a parameter as well an 
>>>>>> arbitrary number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I simply cast all addresses to 32 bit unsigned int,
>>>>> thus no reason for the xor nonsense. I changed this
>>>>> to function pointers because some nit picky reviewers
>>>>> were freaking out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I may not have  very much time left, lets get to the freaking point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point is, no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F does not halt, 
>>>
>>> I  can't tell WTF the new screwy one does and don't
>>> have time to deal with it. The radiation therapy
>>> just made me shit my pants.
>>
>> As before, it tests every natural number to see if it's greater than 10. 
> 
> I don't give a rat's ass about any of that.

I'll let you respond to yourself:

On 11/10/2024 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
 > That is a dishonest dodge. An honest rebuttal would explain
 > all of the details of how I am incorrect. You can't do that
 > because I am correct.


> 
>>   If it finds one, it halts and returns 0.  If it can't find one, it 
>> gets stuck in infinite recursion and does not halt.
>>
>> Since you agreed that no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F does 
>> not halt, then we can conclude that there are no natural numbers 
>> greater than 10.
>>
>> Agreed?
>>
>>>
>>>> as you have agreed, and F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) correctly 
>>>> reports that.  And because no_numbers_greater_than_10 does not halt, 
>>>> we can conclude that there are no natural numbers greater than 10.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>