XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-11-21, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >> On 2025-11-21, olcott  wrote:   
   >>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation   
   >>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH   
   >>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function   
   >>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in   
   >>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH   
   >>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several   
   >>>> lines!)   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within   
   >>> the context of this.   
   >>>   
   >>> int DD()   
   >>> {   
   >>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>     if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>       HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>     return Halt_Status;   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>      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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify   
   >>> non-halting behavior.   
   >>   
   >> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;   
   >> where the bar is at for proving something.   
   >>   
   >   
   > A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by   
   > applying correct semantic entailment to a   
   > self-evidently true basis.   
      
   You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.   
      
   > The semantics of C and the above function are the   
   > self-evidently true basis.   
      
   The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of   
   HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to   
   the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.   
      
   Those can all be incorrect, without the "semantics of C"   
   being violated!   
      
   Do you not know that a program can be buggy? Or entirely the wrong   
   program written to the wrong requirements? Yet completely adhere to the   
   semantics of its programming language (whch means never doing anything   
   undefined?)   
      
   You've only been a coding technician and not an actual engineer,   
   that's why you don't know basics like this.   
      
   --   
   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)