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: Fri, 9 May 2025 11:02:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vvl8ue$2rl0l$15@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgq6o$1acph$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>
 <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me> <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me> <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
 <219295c65f6a06d6333fb06933346c88139a95be@i2pn2.org>
 <vvjm4h$28g5i$8@dont-email.me> <vvkgdu$2m36t$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 18:02:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b8226b0a928845ead4a9adb4b3b34c7d";
	logging-data="3003413"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+gTlMi2JDdUNrHudrJZmi0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:P7uuegsEujBX0dMNMX4IHiCWBw0=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250509-2, 5/9/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvkgdu$2m36t$6@dont-email.me>

On 5/9/2025 4:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 09.mei.2025 om 03:35 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/8/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/8/25 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2025 6:54 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2025 6:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/05/2025 23:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> If you are a competent C programmer
>>>>>>> Keith Thompson is a highly-respected and very competent C
>>>>>>> programmer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Then he is just who I need*
>>>>>
>>>>> No, what you need is someone who is an expert in mathematical logic
>>>>> (I am not) who can explain to you, in terms you can understand and
>>>>> accept, where you've gone wrong.  Some expertise in C could also
>>>>> be helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The key gap in my proof is that none of the comp.sci
>>>> people seems to have a slight clue about simple C
>>>> programming.
>>>
>>> No, the problem is you don't.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> *THIS IS THE C PART THAT NO ONE HERE UNDERSTANDS*
>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>> reach its own "return" instruction.
>>>
>>> And claiming the behavior of a program that isn;t the behavior of 
>>> that program is just a lie.
>>>
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
>> reach its own "return" instruction.
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
>> reach its own "return" instruction.
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
>> reach its own "return" instruction.
>>
> 
> 
> No need to repeat vacuous statements. It does not matter how many times 
> you multiply 0, it will remains 0.
> DDD contains an HHH that aborts, 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

When 1 or more statements of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then this correctly simulated
DDD cannot possibly reach its own “return statement”.

> so a correct simulation will take that 
> into account and reach the 'return'. HHH does not do such a correct 
> simulation, which makes your statements vacuous.


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