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: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:43:48 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 144 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 01:43:48 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a93f6a3455369601392e9e0d36d9a046"; logging-data="2932365"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+RdpK/z8UPHt1tSSAi39XX" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:iApB4rho4LTATjcZWl0biCVjTHY= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6673 On 2/26/2025 9:27 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/26/2025 7:22 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 2/25/2025 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 2/25/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 2/25/2025 10:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 2/25/2025 9:45 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 2/25/2025 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 8:52 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 6:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 12:49 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>> proof or pointer to proof below. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its >>>>>>>>>>>> own "return" instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That this may be beyond your technical skill level. >>>>>>>>>>>> is less than no rebuttal at all. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10(); >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> int F(uintptr_t p); >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10() >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>    return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10); >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10); >>>>>>>>>>>    return 0; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The above does specify that no_numbers_greater_than_10 >>>>>>>>>>> simulated by F >>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its >>>>>>>>>>> own "return" instruction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That this may be beyond your technical skill level >>>>>>>>>>> is less than no rebuttal at all. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Finally you made something that was not wrong in several >>>>>>>>>> different ways. >>>>>>>>>> So what is your point? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good.  So now looking again at the code, this time showing the >>>>>>>> implementation of F: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10(); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> int F(uintptr_t p) >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>    uintptr_t ptr = (uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10; >>>>>>>>    uintptr_t i = p ^ ptr;i >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am never going to attempt to deal with this convoluted bullshit. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's XORing the input value with the address of >>>>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10.  It allows F to both accept the >>>>>> address of no_numbers_greater_than_10 as a parameter as well an >>>>>> arbitrary number. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I simply cast all addresses to 32 bit unsigned int, >>>>> thus no reason for the xor nonsense. I changed this >>>>> to function pointers because some nit picky reviewers >>>>> were freaking out. >>>>> >>>>> I may not have  very much time left, lets get to the freaking point. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The point is, no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F does not halt, >>> >>> I  can't tell WTF the new screwy one does and don't >>> have time to deal with it. The radiation therapy >>> just made me shit my pants. >> >> As before, it tests every natural number to see if it's greater than 10. > > I don't give a rat's ass about any of that. I'll let you respond to yourself: On 11/10/2024 11:41 PM, olcott wrote: > That is a dishonest dodge. An honest rebuttal would explain > all of the details of how I am incorrect. You can't do that > because I am correct. > >>   If it finds one, it halts and returns 0.  If it can't find one, it >> gets stuck in infinite recursion and does not halt. >> >> Since you agreed that no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F does >> not halt, then we can conclude that there are no natural numbers >> greater than 10. >> >> Agreed? >> >>> >>>> as you have agreed, and F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) correctly >>>> reports that.  And because no_numbers_greater_than_10 does not halt, >>>> we can conclude that there are no natural numbers greater than 10. >>>> >>>> Agreed? >>>> >>> >>> >> > >