Path: ...!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: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:45:44 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 127 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 04:45:44 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8c7f346afa17fa83955460762decb93"; logging-data="2405133"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qvRUTHXf8som7nJQtkQtl" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:rC4NyT7rN70QrSJ1udXWMFDusgE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5374 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. By doing allowing F to take the address of a function, F can be construed as a simulator by performing a calculation on that address to start emulating the first instruction, and breaking out of the recursive call can be construed as aborting that simulation. The point is, no_numbers_greater_than_10 has been proven not to halt, as you have agreed, and since it doesn't halt that proves that there are no natural numbers greater than 10. Agreed? > >>    if (i > 10) >>      return 0; >>    else >>      return F((i+1) ^ ptr); >> } >> >> 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; >> } >> >> no_numbers_greater_than_10 determines whether there exists a number >> greater than 10 by testing all numbers.  If if finds one, it aborts >> and halts returning 0.  If it does not, it gets stuck in infinite >> recursion and does not halt. >> >> Since it was correctly determined, and you agreed, that >> no_numbers_greater_than_10 does not halt, we can conclude that there >> are no natural numbers greater than 10. >> >> Agreed? > >