Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 21:28:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vvjp7j$28g5i$13@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgqgl$15i5e$27@dont-email.me>
 <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me> <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me> <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me> <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me> <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me> <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me> <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me> <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4>
 <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjc9b$27753$1@dont-email.me>
 <87ecwyekg2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjg6a$28g5i$3@dont-email.me>
 <d577d485d0f5dfab26315f54f91eb84f25eecc40@i2pn2.org>
 <87bjs2cyj6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 04:28:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b8226b0a928845ead4a9adb4b3b34c7d";
	logging-data="2375858"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PuLGPPgFIQw5biW6SNzVb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:76bbg2+vEWCvOJHz2jo5cUxQm4U=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250508-4, 5/8/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <87bjs2cyj6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/8/2025 9:23 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> writes:
>> On 5/8/25 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> [...]
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>     return;
>>> }
>>> We don't need to look at any of my code for me
>>> to totally prove my point. For example when
>>> the above DDD is correctly simulated by HHH
>>> this simulated DDD cannot possibly reach its own
>>> "return" instruction.
>>
>> And thus not correctly simulatd.
>>
>> Sorry, there is no "OS Exemption" to correct simulaiton;.
> 
> Perhaps I've missed something.  I don't see anything in the above that
> implies that HHH does not correctly simulate DDD.  Richard, you've read
> far more of olcott's posts than I have, so perhaps you can clarify.
> 
> If we assume that HHH correctly simulates DDD, then the above code is
> equivalent to:
> 
>      void DDD()
>      {
>        DDD();
>        return;
>      }
> 
> which is a trivial case of infinite recursion.  As far as I can tell,
> assuming that DDD() is actually called at some point, neither the
> outer execution of DDD nor the nested (simulated) execution of DDD
> can reach the return statement.  Infinite recursion might either
> cause a stack overflow and a probable program crash, or an unending
> loop if the compiler implements tail call optimization.
> 
> I see no contradiction, just an uninteresting case of infinite
> recursion, something that's well understood by anyone with a
> reasonable level of programming experience.  (And it has nothing to
> do with the halting problem as far as I can tell, though of course
> olcott has discussed the halting problem elsewhere.)
> 
> Richard, what am I missing?
> 

Now you are seeing what I was talking about.
Now you are seeing why I needed to cross post
to comp.lang.c

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