XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.46:   
   > On 11/28/2025 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> Chris M. Thomasson kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 9.58:   
   >>> On 11/26/2025 11:49 PM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.17:   
   >>>>> On 11/26/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 17.11.2025 klo 15.31:   
   >>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and irrelevanto   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the semantic and other   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in comp.theory.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, I did yesterday.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test.c halts is not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is not even   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate H(D),   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either simultating   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D) with the same   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or do whatever H would   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies. According   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to C semantics   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result is   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally valid.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation never being   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before calling   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and therefore   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a decider.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*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);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)