XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-20, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/20/2025 4:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-20, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/19/2025 10:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/19/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the   
   >>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ... and, note,   
   >>>>>> that you dishonestly erased most of the context   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That's just the same pseudo-code snppet you've posted   
   >>>>> hundreds of times.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The idea is that I will keep repeating this   
   >>>> until you pay attention   
   >>>>   
   >>>> int DD()   
   >>>> {   
   >>>>      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>>      if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>        HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>      return Halt_Status;   
   >>>> }   
   >>>>   
   >>>> int main()   
   >>>> {   
   >>>>      HHH(DD);   
   >>>> }   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I've given ths an incredible amount of attention.   
   >>>   
   >>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)   
   >>>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
   >>>   
   >>> If HHH(DD) returns 0, it's this;   
   >>>   
   >>>      HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)   
   >>>        - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
   >>>            - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
   >>>            - but only partially, returning 0.   
   >>>            - such that DD terminates.   
   >>>        - but only partially, returning 0.   
   >>>        - such that DD terminates.   
   >>>   
   >>> Adding another level:   
   >>>   
   >>>      HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)   
   >>>        - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
   >>>            - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
   >>>               - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
   >>>                 - that ...   
   >>>                   - that ...   
   >>>                     - that ...   
   >>>               - but only partially, returning 0.   
   >>   
   >> Such a jackass trying to get away with saying   
   >   
   > All you have is personal attacks, rather than reasoning   
   > and following code and execution traces.   
   >   
   >> that simulated inputs that cannot possibly stop   
   >> running unless aborted terminate normally.   
   >   
   > Self-assurance without a shred of support.   
   >   
   >>    
   >>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D   
   >>     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never   
   >>     stop running unless aborted then...   
   >   
   > I also agreed to these words, at least four times.   
   >   
      
   I doubt this. Prove it with a   
   Time/Date stamp and a Message ID.   
      
   It must be actual agreement with those   
   actual words or you are still a liar.   
      
   It can't be some bullshit that I didn't   
   interpret them correctly, they only have   
   one single meaning.   
      
   You have proven that you are smart   
   https://www.nongnu.org/txr/   
   Now prove that you are not a liar.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)