XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   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 also agree with "If the is_even() function correctly processes   
   its input 42 until it correctly determines that it would   
   be odd unless divided by two without a remainder ..."   
      
   > *You are not stupid so that only leaves liar*   
      
   Those are the options only under the assumption that YOU are not stupid!   
      
   See, you are not smart enough to even analyze all the cases in   
   this particular matter.   
      
   The more or less complete case analyis is this:   
      
   Either:   
      
   - (a) you are stupid; or   
   - (b) you are pretending to be stupid; or   
   - (c) everyone else is stupid; or   
   - (d) everyone else is faking.   
      
   I have reproduced my claims in a small amount of code, which you can   
   inspect, build and run.   
      
   If liars encode their claims in published code, you can find the lie.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)