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: Richard Heathfield Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid Mistake and Liars Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:49:51 +0000 Organization: Fix this later Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 04:49:52 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1e46a42d02300691bd0ac693a83620d5"; logging-data="2560376"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+b3I0NwP8HhxGjhbPPXuz2GbAhz6yx52q+HHdno409rg==" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:YR8kT4lQ2NHQoCX9DbwyyMWD+q0= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2331 On 12/03/2025 02:33, dbush wrote: > On 3/11/2025 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and >> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot >> possibly f-cking halt no f-cking matter what. >> > > Obviously, so what's the next step? To show that it provides the correct answer for other functions. This he has not yet done. Of course, it's not impossible to get a few right... int halts(void(*p)()) { return 1; } will produce the right answer most of the time, but it's hardly a plausible way to overturn Turing's paper. OP's decision program has to get it right /every/ time. One failure proves that Olcott is wrong. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within