XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/12/2025 9:03 AM, joes wrote:   
   > Am Wed, 12 Nov 2025 07:37:05 -0600 schrieb olcott:   
   >> On 11/12/2025 12:11 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-11, olcott  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>> Only if you don't resume them at the exact same state where you left   
   >>>>>> them and that is flat our cheating.   
   > Luckily that’s not what’s going on.   
   >   
   >>> But, /all the instructions have to be from the same control flow/.   
   >> When DD calls HHH(DD) and HHH simulates DD this control flow is   
   >> isomorphic to HHH invoking DD.   
   > A caller cannot abort a function.   
   >   
      
   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);   
   }   
      
   None-the-less we have the exact same   
   repeating pattern such that DD simulated   
   or directly invoked by HHH cannot possibly   
   reach its own "return" statement final   
   halt state.   
      
   --   
   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)