Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Only C programmers tell the truth about the behavior of DD
 simulated by HHH
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 18:52:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c8041ecdcd4efaf109eb264050544813434dd258@i2pn2.org>
References: <vtr79n$u6o3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 22:52:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="783950"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vtr79n$u6o3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2446
Lines: 47

On 4/17/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
> 
> 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);
> }
> 
> DD simulated by HHH includes HHH simulating itself
> simulating DD until HHH sees the non-terminating
> pattern and rejects DD as non-terminating.
> 

No, because a real C programmer knows that the above has EXPLICT 
underfined behavior, because that program doesn't have an HHH defined.

And, if you try to equivocate and say you are including your Halt7.c to 
define it, then you explaniation is wrong, as your HHH is not defined to 
do that, but to only simulate the input for a little bit, then abort its 
simulation and return.

The problem is when you include that definition, all your descriptions 
become errors.

First, HHH doesn't do what you claim, and even your question become 
errors as you can't ask about the correct answer it could return, when, 
because it has to be difined first, there is only one answer that it 
DOES return.

You can't base the answer on it doing a correct simulation, when it 
doesn't actually do one.

All you are proving is that your logic, and yourself, is just unsound, 
as it is based on the assumption of false statement.

This just proves that you are nothing but a pathological liar that 
doesn't understand what he is talking about.