Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 08:41:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <v9q9ak$1tedb$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
 <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
 <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
 <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
 <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
 <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
 <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me> <v9nkhd$1ertd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me> <v9pgpc$1qm46$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 15:41:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c4a0c817977c3965e873c4f304e2b88";
	logging-data="2013611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/werS1Ts7S/g4d3fQgf0aM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pjfZAiXVWum/9TwOvKXqDNCT2lQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9pgpc$1qm46$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3318

On 8/17/2024 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-16 14:09:40 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I must go one step at a time.
>>>
>>> That's reasonable in a discussion. The one thing you were discussing
>>> above is what is the meaning of the output of HHH. Its OK to stay
>>> at that step until we are sure it is understood.
>>>
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH
>> can reach the "return" instruction of DDD it is
>> construed that this instance of DDD never halts.
> 
> Whaatever you "construe" does not change the fact that DDD specifies
> a halting computation if HHH does.
> 
>> For three years now at least most reviewers insisted
>> on disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language.
> 
> If you claim that HHH halts and DDD doesn't you disagree with
> the semantics of both C and x86 languages.
> 

Please see my new post. I do not have the time to
deal with any less precise specification.
[Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth]

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