XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/7/2025 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-06 10:54:43 +0000, olcott said:   
   >   
   >> On 11/6/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-05 11:37:15 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 11/5/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-04 13:56:17 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 11/4/2025 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-03 23:28:03 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Irrelevant here. I said "Perhaps you should try to improve your   
   >>>>>>>>> perfirmance in the art of excution traces". You didn't ppint out   
   >>>>>>>>> any error or incoherence in that sentence. Instead you said   
   >>>>>>>>> "There is no mistake in the essence of above."   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> *Claude, ChatGPGT, Gemini and Grok all agree on this*   
   >>>>>> *links provided below*   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> int D()   
   >>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);   
   >>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The function H is a simulating termination analyzer:   
   >>>>>>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:   
   >>>>>>>>      abort simulation and return 0.   
   >>>>>>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated   
   >>>>>>>>      "return" statement: return 1.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> When given a function P, it literally simulates each   
   >>>>>>>> step of executing P() to *see whether that simulated*   
   >>>>>>>> *execution ever reaches a return statement* Now let H   
   >>>>>>>> simulate D. Based only on the outcome of that literal   
   >>>>>>>> simulation (not on reasoning about what should happen),   
   >>>>>>>> what result should H(D) produce?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That is irrelevant to anything in the quoted text.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You didn't even pay attention to the words the last paragraph.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Everything in the last paragraph, including the question, is   
   >>>>> as ifrrelevant as the text before.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> One should also note that you didn't identify any relevance.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It forms a proof that H(D) is correct to reject (D).   
   >>>> That you didn't see that proves that you are not   
   >>>> paying close enough attention.   
   >>>   
   >>> If does not form a proof of anything.   
   >>   
   >> The proof would be my reviewers actually knowing C   
   >> programming and being able to do their own execution   
   >> trace.   
   >   
   > No, that would not be a proof. A proof is a seuence of sentences,   
      
   A proof is any damn thing that shows a conclusion   
   is necessarily true.   
      
   When we start with the semantics of the C programming   
   language and this finite string of ASCII characters   
   defining the C function D:   
      
   int D()   
   {   
      int Halt_Status = H(D);   
      if (Halt_Status)   
        HERE: goto HERE;   
      return Halt_Status;   
   }   
      
   And the knowledge that H is a C interpreter   
   that takes the above test.c file as an input   
   and knows that the call to H(D) in D calls   
   itself to simulate the text body of D then   
   the execution trace proves that D simulated   
   by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated   
   "return" statement final halt state.   
      
   > each of which either is a premise or follows from earlier sentences   
   > in the proof by a truth-preserving transformatios. The proof proves   
   > its last sentence, which is called the concluson of the proof.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)