XPost: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math   
   From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi   
      
   olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 14.47:   
   > On 12/1/2025 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >> olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 18.38:   
   >>> On 11/29/2025 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.46:   
   >>>>> On 11/28/2025 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 9.58:   
   >>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 11:49 PM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.17:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 17.11.2025 klo 15.31:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevanto to the semantic and other   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comp.theory.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comp.theory. But yes, I did yesterday.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether test.c halts is not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect answer is not even   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D), either simultating   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from H(D) with the same   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed, or do whatever H would   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semantics   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is equally valid.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never being   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling H(D)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)