Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input --- TOTALLY
 CLUELESS
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 16:55:32 +0100
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vvfvpk$13ojt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvatf3$o4v0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvaut0$vtiu$4@dont-email.me> <vvav6o$o4v0$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvb329$15u5b$1@dont-email.me> <vvb37g$1451r$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvb43f$15u5b$4@dont-email.me> <vvb4ok$o4v0$9@dont-email.me>
 <vvb52g$15u5b$6@dont-email.me> <vvb5ca$o4v0$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvb5vp$15u5b$7@dont-email.me> <vvb675$o4v0$11@dont-email.me>
 <vvb9d7$1av94$3@dont-email.me> <vvbani$1b6l1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbb6s$1av94$4@dont-email.me> <vvbcb3$1b6l1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvbe0j$1av94$8@dont-email.me> <vvbecc$1b6l1$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvbhk0$1ijna$1@dont-email.me> <vvc7t9$29pp8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvc86c$2a4cs$1@dont-email.me> <vvcufi$2sk4a$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvdlff$3i09b$2@dont-email.me> <vvdo96$3lapa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvdr87$3n3t4$1@dont-email.me> <vve3mf$3vva3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vve4ut$f5c$1@dont-email.me> <vveu05$odan$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvfmrf$11mbc$1@dont-email.me> <vvfqab$129b9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvfsah$130t3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 17:55:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1de3d45e2783553e22f3c2216cb20b34";
	logging-data="1172093"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qHEOOtKg9hnTFqvYWCyDfh3KLibiZmDZuUpB8YxPPKg=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vX+UCD69BAywflKEbfSK27LX5D0=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vvfsah$130t3$1@dont-email.me>

On 07/05/2025 15:56, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 9:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 07/05/2025 14:22, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> There's also an important difference between claiming that 
>>>> Mike's claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim 
>>>> is counter- factual. 
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>
>> Yeah, you keep posting that, as if it had some kind of 
>> persuasive power.
>>
>> It doesn't.
>>
> 
> Every sufficiently competent C program has agreed.

Name one sufficiently competent C programmer who is prepared to 
confirm their agreement.

> The DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "return" instruction.
> 
> If you are totally clueless about programming you
> won't get this.

So you say. And if (as it appears) you are totally clueless about 
logic, you won't get the Halting Problem proof.

Now let's look at the code.

int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}

The behaviour of this code depends on the HHH function, which you 
don't show here.

If you care to show the /whole/ of the C code, we can talk about 
what the C /actually/ does, rather than what you think it does.

-- 
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