Path: 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 18:54:46 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 118 Message-ID: <87o6w2czvd.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87ecwyekg2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <871psyejpl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 03:54:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="302a6dd640940106301f9e87fdade96e"; logging-data="2450542"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4Lr1BDfhXmLVUZkF3DYFf" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZqxvAX1vjWFTK2bRBt16Jl/7Dqo= sha1:gUIxpCD3rsmX+s8mgoCIUqMRviM= olcott writes: > On 5/8/2025 7:00 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> 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. > > Do you know what a C language interpreter is? Yes. Do you? I don't read most of your posts, but I've never seen you post anything that could reasonably be called a C language interpreter. Perhaps if you explain what you mean someone could suggest a more accurate term for it. > I actually do this at the x86 machine code level > yet most people don't have a clue about that. My knowledge of x86 machine code is minimal. I thought you were saying someone only needs to be "sufficiently competent C programmer" was enough to understand your arguments. > _DDD() > [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) > [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [00002182] 5d pop ebp > [00002183] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] I see no interpretation of C code. All I see is a mix of x86 machine code (in hexadecimal) and x86 assembly code. > The above hypothetical HHH emulates the first four > instructions of DDD. This sequence repeats until a > OOM error. If you say so. A "C language interpreter" would take C *source code* as input and execute it, presumably without first compiling it to machine code. Let me warn you again that I expect I will tire of this discussion very soon, so I suggest you make any coherent points quickly. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */