XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/18/2025 3:30 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 11/18/2025 2:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Newsgroups: trimmed ]
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2025 12:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/18/2025 12:04 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:43:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> The information that HHH is given is the same as a C execution
>>>>>>>>> environment is given for a direct exectuion.
>
>>>>>>>> No it is not.
>
>>>>>>> What information are HHH, HHH1, a UTM and an x86 processor given
>>>>>>> or not? What is different, what is missing?
>
>
>>>>>> If you understood what ordinary recursion
>>>>>> is you would have known this a long time ago.
>
>>>>> You patronising little bastard.
>
>
>>>> I asked her time and time again whether
>>>> she had any actual programming experience.
>>>> That lack of any response would seem to
>>>> indicate negative.
>
>>> That's totally irrelevant. A straight question was asked, and you
>>> chose to insult rather than giving a straight answer.
>
>
>> After my straight question was either dodged or lied about for more
>> than three years ....
>
> I have seen no question of yours habitually dodged or lied about.
> People, including me, have answered your questions honestly and
> truthfully.
>
>> .... I upped the ante to counter baseless denigration of my work ....
>
> I have seen no baseless denigration of your work. Other posters have
> given up their time to review and criticise your work. You have failed
> to take that criticism on board.
>
>> .... that is an example of the "reckless disregard for the truth" that
>> loses libel cases.
>
> No, it is a thankless striving after the truth. And even if you were
> right in what you're saying, it wouldn't be a libel cause, since it's not
> defamation directed at your person.
>
>> If I didn't do this then the baseless denigration of my work could be
>> construed as correct. It would be stupid of me to tolerate that.
>
> You mean if you didn't answer pertinent straight questions with
> derogatory insults and innuendo. If you actually acted honourably on
> this newgroup you might find things going better for you.
>
>>>>>> Not having any understanding of ordinary
>>>>>> recursion makes it impossible for you to understand.
>
>>>>> Joes understands recursion full well, just like every other poster on
>>>>> this group.
>
>>>>>> When I say that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation
>>>>>> translates into DD blah, blah, blah blah blah
>>>>>> you will never be able to get it.
>
>>>>> That wasn't the question asked. The question asked is still cited
>>>>> above, and you appear unable to answer it. Or maybe you lack the
>>>>> manners to do so.
>
>
>>>> The implied base question which everyone here (besides Ben) either
>>>> dodged or expressed counter-factual assessment was:
>
>
>> Do you understand that DD simulated by HHH
>> cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
>> statement final halt state.
>
> As a fact, HHH simulating DD _can_ reach DD's return instruction. Kaz
> and Mike have actually tried this out using your HHH and seen it reaching
> the return. You have dodged their findings.
>
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
Weasel word double talk excuses do not count
as a single contiguous execution trace in C
showing exactly how and why DD simulated by
HHH reaches its own simulated "return" statement
final halt state.
--
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)
|
