Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 17:00:54 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 81 Message-ID: <871psyejpl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87ecwyekg2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 02:00:55 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="302a6dd640940106301f9e87fdade96e"; logging-data="2375298"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//YfDY2WmtDLcjFtbmxZ1q" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qiEIDJJSIJGEmclHdJOzLNgbaT0= sha1:/pXXBAwPOpeBA5er3ArEKSiYZeE= Bytes: 4571 olcott writes: > On 5/8/2025 6:45 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> olcott writes: >>> On 5/8/2025 5:26 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> [...] >>>> I am more nearly an expert on C than on the Halting Problem. >>>> Watching olcott base his arguments on C *and getting C so badly >>>> wrong* leads me to think that he is largely ignorant of C (which is >>>> fine, most people are) and is unwilling to admit it. Watching the >>>> reactions of actual experts to his mathematical arguments leads me >>>> to the same conclusion about his knowledge of the relevant fields >>>> of mathematics. >>>> >>> >>> If Halt7.c is not compiled with the Microsoft >>> compiler then it will not produce the required >>> object file type. >>> >>> The rest of the system has compiled under >>> Linux. I haven't tried this in a few years. >> [...] >> So you normally compile your code using the 2017 version of >> Microsoft >> Visual Studio. >> I have no particular problem with that, but your failure to correct >> a number of C errors in your code is odd. > > As I already proved Microsoft reported no such errors. Microsoft's compiler did not report certain errors that any conforming C compiler is required by the standard to report. Microsoft's compiler *can* be invoked in a way that causes it to diagnose such errors, though it may or may not become fully conforming. I haven't used it lately, but a web search should tell you how to do that. >> I've pointed out several >> syntax errors and constraint violations; at least the syntax errors >> would be trivial to fix (even if your compiler is lax enough to >> fail to diagnose them). Richard Heathfield has pointed out code >> that dereferences a null pointer. >> > > Mike corrected Richard on this. > Those are stub functions intercepted > by x86utm the operating system. > >> You are using C, a language in which you appear to have little >> apparent expertise or willingness to learn, to demonstrate claims >> that, if true, would overturn ideas that have been generally accepted >> for decades. Can you understand why I might decide that analyzing >> your claims is not worth my time? >> > > I learned C back when K & R was the standard. So did I. I've kept up with the language as it has changed. > void DDD() > { > HHH(DDD); > return; > } > > We don't need to look at any of my code for me > to totally prove my point. Great. Then why do you keep posting code? Or is the above DDD() function not included in "any of my code")? > For example when > the above DDD is correctly simulated by HHH > this simulated DDD cannot possibly reach its own > "return" instruction. That's too vague for me to comment. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */