XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++
From: rjh@cpax.org.uk
On 22/11/2025 05:14, olcott wrote:
> On 11/21/2025 4:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> The combination of the semantics of C
> and the source of the function DD provide
> all the information needed to specify all
> of the details of the steps of DD simulated
> by HHH.
Not so.
HHH could, for example, contain its own exit() call, in which
case DD halts, or its own for(;;); loop, in which case DD doesn't
halt... or even both, in which case it all depends.
Since DD calls HHH, DD's behaviour depends on HHH's behaviour,
and any analysis of DD's behaviour must therefore include an
analysis of HHH's behaviour.
What you have to remember about olcott is that not only does he
have no understanding of DD's specific dependency on HHH (ie
whether DD halts depends first and foremost on HHH's coin-toss
decision), but neither does he have any idea of any C function's
generic dependency on the functions it calls.
Not only is olcott a damned liar, but he's a damned idiot. He is,
in fact, a fine exemplar of why killfiles were invented. Just
plonk him and (barring the odd nymshyft) you can be done with him
for good.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
