XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/24/2025 11:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   >   
   > [Follow-ups set]   
   >   
   > On 24/11/2025 23:23, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 11/24/2025 4:45 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-24, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> As long as you keep lying I will keep repeating it.   
   >>>   
   >>> To lie is to knowing post something that is false.   
   >>>   
   >>> But if you do that about an objectively verifiable fact   
   >>> that has nothing to do with yourself, but some scientific   
   >>> matter, nobody in their right mind will see you as a liar.   
   >>>   
   >>> Rather than see you as a liar, they will just assume you   
   >>> are ignorant and incompetent.   
   >>>   
   >>> What makes you think I, or Mike, or anyone here would   
   >>> write something I know to be false, which would be   
   >>> interpreted as ignorant, rather than dishonest?   
   >>>   
   >>> Maybe you don't understand that nobody would do that, since you have   
   >>> no problem being casually wrong yourself.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The people on comp.lang.c or comp.lang.c++ can always speak   
   >> up.   
   >   
   > They have done so, many times. They have told you many times that   
   > you are wrong. You don't care, of course.   
   >   
      
   Time and date stamp any time anyone   
   from comp.lang.c that ever said that   
   actually made a specific programming error.   
      
   >>   
   >> typedef int (*ptr)(); int HHH(ptr P); int HHH1(ptr P);   
   >>   
   >> int DD() { int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); if (Halt_Status) HERE:   
   >> goto HERE; return Halt_Status; }   
   >>   
   >> int main() { HHH(DD); HHH1(DD); }   
   >>   
   >> HHH simulates DD   
   >   
   > The rules of C offer no mechanism for HHH to be able to simulate any C   
   > function using nothing but a function pointer.   
      
   I do this at the x86 level thus equivalent to the   
   C level.   
      
   > The closest you can get   
   > is to dereference it, but you don't do that. Your 'simulation' doesn't   
   > simulate any part of DD past the call in its first line, and you can   
   > only do that because of a platform-specific hack that breaks the rules   
   > of C.   
   >   
      
   The x86 code can and does pass machine addresses   
   after I am done with the construction on my house   
   I plan on rewriting this using a C interpreter.   
      
   > You have been told this many times, but you're not interested in truth   
   > or competence., so (as Kaz rightly said) we all have to assume that you   
   > are ignorant and incompetent.   
   >   
      
   I have been told counter-factually that I   
   an wrong many times. It is a matter of   
   verified fact that   
      
   HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)   
   that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...   
   that never stops running until aborted   
      
   HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) that   
   returns to DD that returns to HHH1.   
   (when HHH(DD) sees the repeating pattern)   
      
   The dumbest person here should have gotten   
   that three years ago.   
      
   Only one person ever got that and he did get   
   that three years ago.   
      
   On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
    > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H   
    > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines   
    > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.   
      
      
   > Followups set to comp.theory only, because nobody has anything to gain   
   > from your cross-posting to language experts whose expert opinions you   
   > invariably ignore.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)