XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/11/2025 8:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-11, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/11/2025 1:17 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-11, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2025 10:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> simulator.exe is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>>>>>>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>>>>>>> you are spinning at the moment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The interpreter API consists of primitives built
>>>>>>> into the system, so it isn't traced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
>>>>>> without being directly specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
>>>>> interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
>>>>> object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
>>>>> plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
>>>>> or the solution to incomputable problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
>>>>> requirements, nor by concrete example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I will just go back to my original code
>>>> if you want to play head games.
>>>
>>> It has been shown with actual programming against your code framework
>>> that abortind deciders leave behind continuable simulations, which may
>>> terminate.
>>
>> Only if you don't resume them at the
>> exact same state where you left them
>> and that is flat our cheating.
>
> The parameters required for the next DebugStep of the abandoned
> simulation are correctly determined.
>
> You need to point out the exact lines of code which have the problem
> that you are alleging, and give details about that problem, otherwise
> you are blabbing about nothing.
>
Like you are too stupid to recognize that recursive
simulation derives the exact same non-halting behavior
pattern as infinite recursion? I DON'T BUY IT !!!
Are you really this stupid or just a liar?
I know that Mike is not this stupid he proved
his technical competence in far too many ways.
That he proposed this also seems to prove he is not a liar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
A software engineer Not being able to recognize
behavior exactly the same as infinite recursion
is the same as a PhD math professor that does
not know how to do first grade arithmetic.
--
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)
|
