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: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid
 Mistake and Liars
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:44:03 +0000
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <vqqvu3$2e4bo$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqqnk5$28jtr$1@dont-email.me> <vqqonm$28lh2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqqq09$28kp8$1@dont-email.me> <vqqq7s$29buv$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqqrin$28lh2$4@dont-email.me> <vqqros$29meg$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 04:44:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1e46a42d02300691bd0ac693a83620d5";
	logging-data="2560376"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+lK4CymSeYfAX98rjXS1RR8pndkN///X1sRC0Qt+YKxg=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xpwcN7KEnjfzEqtpk3lPaXwmWVQ=
In-Reply-To: <vqqros$29meg$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3575

On 12/03/2025 02:33, olcott wrote:
> On 3/11/2025 9:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 12/03/2025 02:06, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>>>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>>>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it correctly simulates infinitely many steps, it doesn't 
>>>>> terminate. Look up "infinite".
>>>>>
>>>>> But your task is to decide for /any/ program, not just DDD. 
>>>>> That, as you are so fond of saying, is 'stipulated', and you 
>>>>> can't get out of it. The whole point of the 
>>>>> Entscheidungsproblem is its universality. Ignore that, and 
>>>>> you have nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that his code has HHH(DD) returning 0, 
>>>
>>> THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE
>>> WORDS WILL BE TAKEN FOR A LIAR
>>
>>
>> "THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE WORDS WILL BE 
>> TAKEN FOR A LIAR"?
>>
>> Is that all you've got? Nothing on your function's inability to 
>> correctly decide on whether arbitrary input programs terminate, 
>> which is a ***stipulated*** requirement for the problem.
>>
>> Without that, all you have is loud.
>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>> simulated steps.
>>
>> Look up "infinite". You keep using that word. I do not think it 
>> means what you think it means.
>>
> 
> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
> possibly f-cking halt no f-cking matter what.

And anyone other than you should care... because?

The question you continually fail to address is what HHH() does 
with arbitrary input programs.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within