XPost: comp.theory

On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/17/2024 5:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-16 14:50:19 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/16/2024 5:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:24:57 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/15/2024 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-14 14:35:42 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/14/2024 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-13 14:43:09 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/13/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-13 04:54:30 +0000, immibis said:

On 10/05/24 19:55, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

I've tried out your much spammed code on GCC (see below).  It is clear
you have never built or run this code, which ironically can't reach Line
06.  It can't even reach line 00.

Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an example
of D simulated by H:

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

*That people say they know I am wrong yet will not show the detailed*
*steps of how I am wrong indicates that they are probably liars* >>>>>>>>>>>>

You have said, or at least implied that your code fragment is runnable.
I think you are the liar, here.

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function >>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

.  These are the diagnostics generated by GCC:

And the halting problem is about Turing machines, anyway. >>>>>>>>>>

Not necessarily. The same question can be asked about different machines.
The restriction to Turing machines is just one way to ensure that the
problem is well defined.

Well put. All computable functions even if written in C.

You still must ensure that the problem is well defined. With C there is
the problem that conforming C programs often fail to be strictly conforming.
If a program is not strictly conforming it may be interpreted as halting
by some implementation and non-halting or incorrect by another. >>>>>>>>

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

One can correctly determine that every D simulated by H
never reaches past its own line 03.

That is not strictly conforming and hardly conforming at all.

What trivial syntactic error that has no effect
what-so-ever on the semantics do you believe remains?

A trivial sysntactic error means that the program is not strictly
conforming. It may be conforming if some liberal compiler accepts
it.

A missing semi-colon?

Normal semantics is that the program is not executed.

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12   return 0;
13 }

Can you find any compiler that is liberal enough to accept that?

It has been fully operational code under Windows and
Linux for two years.

If your compiler does not reject that program it is not a conforming
C compiler. The semantics according to C standard is that a diagnostic
message must be given. The standard does not specify what happens if
you execute that program anyway.

It is not nit picky syntax that is the issue here.
The SEMANTICS OF THE C PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SPECIFIES

No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair specified
by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

The standard allows that an program is executed but does not
specify what happens when an invalid program is executed.

Fully operational software that runs under Widows and Linux
proves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.

No, it does not. As the program is not strictly comforming
and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
execute it differently or refuse to execute.

Of course, in an implementation that refuses to execute the
simulation can not reach the line 06 or any other line.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/18/2024 8:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/17/2024 5:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-16 14:50:19 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/16/2024 5:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:24:57 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/15/2024 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-14 14:35:42 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/14/2024 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-13 14:43:09 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/13/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-13 04:54:30 +0000, immibis said:

On 10/05/24 19:55, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[ .... ]

I've tried out your much spammed code on GCC (see below). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is clear
you have never built or run this code, which ironically >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't reach Line
06.  It can't even reach line 00.

Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an example
of D simulated by H:

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

*That people say they know I am wrong yet will not show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the detailed*
*steps of how I am wrong indicates that they are probably >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liars*

You have said, or at least implied that your code fragment >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is runnable.
I think you are the liar, here.

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

.  These are the diagnostics generated by GCC:

And the halting problem is about Turing machines, anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>

Not necessarily. The same question can be asked about
different machines.
The restriction to Turing machines is just one way to ensure >>>>>>>>>>>> that the
problem is well defined.

Well put. All computable functions even if written in C.

You still must ensure that the problem is well defined. With C >>>>>>>>>> there is
the problem that conforming C programs often fail to be
strictly conforming.
If a program is not strictly conforming it may be interpreted >>>>>>>>>> as halting
by some implementation and non-halting or incorrect by another. >>>>>>>>>>

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

One can correctly determine that every D simulated by H
never reaches past its own line 03.

That is not strictly conforming and hardly conforming at all.

What trivial syntactic error that has no effect
what-so-ever on the semantics do you believe remains?

A trivial sysntactic error means that the program is not strictly
conforming. It may be conforming if some liberal compiler accepts
it.

A missing semi-colon?

Normal semantics is that the program is not executed.

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12   return 0;
13 }

Can you find any compiler that is liberal enough to accept that?

It has been fully operational code under Windows and
Linux for two years.

If your compiler does not reject that program it is not a conforming
C compiler. The semantics according to C standard is that a diagnostic >>>> message must be given. The standard does not specify what happens if
you execute that program anyway.

It is not nit picky syntax that is the issue here.
The SEMANTICS OF THE C PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SPECIFIES

No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair specified
by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

The standard allows that an program is executed but does not
specify what happens when an invalid program is executed.

Fully operational software that runs under Widows and Linux
proves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.

No, it does not. As the program is not strictly comforming
and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
execute it differently or refuse to execute.

None of the code is flagged /std:c17 indicating that all
the code is conforming.

You are talking like it is categorically impossible for anyone
to possibly understand that recursive simulation is isomorphic
to infinite recursion.

Of course, in an implementation that refuses to execute the
simulation can not reach the line 06 or any other line.

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr y);
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12   return 0;
13 }

In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
x86 instructions of D.

This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
recursive simulation.

The key thing to note is that no D correctly simulated by any H of every
H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
and halts.

But that is just a KNOW LIE as I have posted several time today, and
nearly 3 weeks ago that an H like:


int H(ptr x, ptr y) {
static flag= 0;
if (flag) return 0;
flag = 1;
/* Continue with you standard H but with the omition of the simulaiton
of the funciton H disableed, so it will simulate the steps of H that it
sees */

}

WIll be able to correct simulate that D to line 6.

So, you are just proved to be an ignorant pathological lying idiot that
repeat falsehoods that have been disproven because you just don't care
abuot the truth, just like the election deniers that you put down.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/24 09:02, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:

I recommend ignoring olcott - nothing good ever comes from paying
attention to him.

On 5/17/2024 5:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-16 14:50:19 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/16/2024 5:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:24:57 +0000, olcott said:

...

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12   return 0;
13 }

Can you find any compiler that is liberal enough to accept that?

It has been fully operational code under Windows and
Linux for two years.

If your compiler does not reject that program it is not a conforming
C compiler. The semantics according to C standard is that a diagnostic
message must be given. The standard does not specify what happens if
you execute that program anyway.

It is not nit picky syntax that is the issue here.
The SEMANTICS OF THE C PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SPECIFIES

No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair specified
by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

The standard allows that an program is executed but does not
specify what happens when an invalid program is executed.

You've cross-posted this to comp.lang.c after a long-running discussion
solely on comp.theory. Presumably you're doing that because you want
some discussion about what the standard says about this code. For the
sake of those of us who have not been following that discussion on
comp.theory, could you please identify what it is that you think renders
this code invalid? Offhand, I don't see anything wrong with it, but I'm
far more reliable when I say "I see an error" than when I say "I don't
see an error".

Fully operational software that runs under Widows and Linux
proves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.

No, it does not. As the program is not strictly comforming
and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
execute it differently or refuse to execute.

Which non-standard extension does it use?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/24 11:34 AM, James Kuyper wrote:

On 5/18/24 09:02, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:

I recommend ignoring olcott - nothing good ever comes from paying
attention to him.

On 5/17/2024 5:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-16 14:50:19 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/16/2024 5:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:24:57 +0000, olcott said:

...

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12   return 0;
13 }

Can you find any compiler that is liberal enough to accept that?

It has been fully operational code under Windows and
Linux for two years.

If your compiler does not reject that program it is not a conforming
C compiler. The semantics according to C standard is that a diagnostic >>>> message must be given. The standard does not specify what happens if
you execute that program anyway.

It is not nit picky syntax that is the issue here.
The SEMANTICS OF THE C PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SPECIFIES

No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair specified
by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

The standard allows that an program is executed but does not
specify what happens when an invalid program is executed.

You've cross-posted this to comp.lang.c after a long-running discussion solely on comp.theory. Presumably you're doing that because you want
some discussion about what the standard says about this code. For the
sake of those of us who have not been following that discussion on comp.theory, could you please identify what it is that you think renders
this code invalid? Offhand, I don't see anything wrong with it, but I'm
far more reliable when I say "I see an error" than when I say "I don't
see an error".

Fully operational software that runs under Widows and Linux
proves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.

No, it does not. As the program is not strictly comforming
and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
execute it differently or refuse to execute.

Which non-standard extension does it use?

I think the issue is the casting of a pointer to function to a pointer
to object, which is one of the grey areas in the standard. (which occurs
in code not shown)

It is not specified that such a cast is allowed, but it also isn't
specifically disallowed, it is just omited as a case in the listing of
te possibilities for casting.

POSIX requires that certain limited object pointers can be cast to a
function pointer, but that is an extension.

Most common architectures will support it as they are both just "memory addresses" into the same memory space, but that is not promised by the standard.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/24 12:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.mei.2024 om 17:44 schreef Richard Damon:

On 5/18/24 11:34 AM, James Kuyper wrote:

On 5/18/24 09:02, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:

I recommend ignoring olcott - nothing good ever comes from paying
attention to him.

On 5/17/2024 5:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-16 14:50:19 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/16/2024 5:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:24:57 +0000, olcott said:

...

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12   return 0;
13 }

Can you find any compiler that is liberal enough to accept that? >>>>>>>>

It has been fully operational code under Windows and
Linux for two years.

If your compiler does not reject that program it is not a conforming >>>>>> C compiler. The semantics according to C standard is that a
diagnostic
message must be given. The standard does not specify what happens if >>>>>> you execute that program anyway.

It is not nit picky syntax that is the issue here.
The SEMANTICS OF THE C PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SPECIFIES

No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair specified
by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

The standard allows that an program is executed but does not
specify what happens when an invalid program is executed.

You've cross-posted this to comp.lang.c after a long-running discussion
solely on comp.theory. Presumably you're doing that because you want
some discussion about what the standard says about this code. For the
sake of those of us who have not been following that discussion on
comp.theory, could you please identify what it is that you think renders >>> this code invalid? Offhand, I don't see anything wrong with it, but I'm
far more reliable when I say "I see an error" than when I say "I don't
see an error".

Fully operational software that runs under Widows and Linux
proves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.

No, it does not. As the program is not strictly comforming
and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
execute it differently or refuse to execute.

Which non-standard extension does it use?

I think the issue is the casting of a pointer to function to a pointer
to object, which is one of the grey areas in the standard. (which
occurs in code not shown)

It is not specified that such a cast is allowed, but it also isn't
specifically disallowed, it is just omited as a case in the listing of
te possibilities for casting.

POSIX requires that certain limited object pointers can be cast to a
function pointer, but that is an extension.

Most common architectures will support it as they are both just
"memory addresses" into the same memory space, but that is not
promised by the standard.

Another issue seems to be that in the declaration of H:
int H(ptr x, ptr x);
both parameters have the same name.
(Olcott is famous for using the same name for different objects.)

He fixes it in some versions, and just shows his carelessness.

I think he naturally does that as H, in this example, is always called
with the same parameter twice.

That isn't a point I would make a big deal of, he has bigger errors, but
it does show how he ignores people pointing out errors if he doesn't see
it himself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

Op 18.mei.2024 om 17:44 schreef Richard Damon:

On 5/18/24 11:34 AM, James Kuyper wrote:

On 5/18/24 09:02, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:

I recommend ignoring olcott - nothing good ever comes from paying
attention to him.

On 5/17/2024 5:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-16 14:50:19 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/16/2024 5:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:24:57 +0000, olcott said:

...

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12   return 0;
13 }

Can you find any compiler that is liberal enough to accept that? >>>>>>>

It has been fully operational code under Windows and
Linux for two years.

If your compiler does not reject that program it is not a conforming >>>>> C compiler. The semantics according to C standard is that a diagnostic >>>>> message must be given. The standard does not specify what happens if >>>>> you execute that program anyway.

It is not nit picky syntax that is the issue here.
The SEMANTICS OF THE C PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SPECIFIES

No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair specified
by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

The standard allows that an program is executed but does not
specify what happens when an invalid program is executed.

You've cross-posted this to comp.lang.c after a long-running discussion
solely on comp.theory. Presumably you're doing that because you want
some discussion about what the standard says about this code. For the
sake of those of us who have not been following that discussion on
comp.theory, could you please identify what it is that you think renders
this code invalid? Offhand, I don't see anything wrong with it, but I'm
far more reliable when I say "I see an error" than when I say "I don't
see an error".

Fully operational software that runs under Widows and Linux
proves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.

No, it does not. As the program is not strictly comforming
and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
execute it differently or refuse to execute.

Which non-standard extension does it use?

I think the issue is the casting of a pointer to function to a pointer
to object, which is one of the grey areas in the standard. (which occurs
in code not shown)

It is not specified that such a cast is allowed, but it also isn't specifically disallowed, it is just omited as a case in the listing of
te possibilities for casting.

POSIX requires that certain limited object pointers can be cast to a
function pointer, but that is an extension.

Most common architectures will support it as they are both just "memory addresses" into the same memory space, but that is not promised by the standard.

Another issue seems to be that in the declaration of H:
int H(ptr x, ptr x);
both parameters have the same name.
(Olcott is famous for using the same name for different objects.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/24 11:44, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/18/24 11:34 AM, James Kuyper wrote:

On 5/18/24 09:02, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:...>>>> Fully operational software that runs under Widows and Linux

proves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.

You cannot prove that code is strictly conforming empirically. It might
simply happen to work on every system you've tried it on. Have you ever
tested it on a system where code and data pointers are different sizes?

No, it does not. As the program is not strictly conforming
and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
execute it differently or refuse to execute.

Which non-standard extension does it use?

I think the issue is the casting of a pointer to function to a pointer
to object, which is one of the grey areas in the standard. (which occurs
in code not shown)

It is not specified that such a cast is allowed, but it also isn't specifically disallowed, it is just omitted as a case in the listing of
te possibilities for casting.

Such code has undefined behavior "by the omission of any explicit
definition of behavior." (4p2).
Strictly conforming programs cannot have undefined behavior (4p5).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/24 12:01, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
...

On 2024-05-15 15:24:57 +0000, olcott said:

...

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);

...

Another issue seems to be that in the declaration of H:
int H(ptr x, ptr x);
both parameters have the same name.
(Olcott is famous for using the same name for different objects.)

The standard requires that different entities designated by the same
identifier must either have different scopes or different namespaces. (6.2.1p2). In a function declaration that is not part of a function
definition, the parameter names have all function prototype scope
(6.2.1p4) and belong to the ordinary identifier name space (6.2.3p1).
This is not labelled as a constraint or syntax error, but the standard
fails to say what should be done with code that doesn't follow this
rule, so the behavior is undefined "by omission of any explicit
definition of the behavior".

In a function definition, the parameter names have block scope and
belong to the ordinary identifier name space, and therefore must not
only avoid duplicating each other, but must also avoid duplicating any identifier declared in the outermost block of the function.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/24 12:32 PM, James Kuyper wrote:

On 5/18/24 11:44, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/18/24 11:34 AM, James Kuyper wrote:

On 5/18/24 09:02, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:...>>>> Fully operational

software that runs under Widows and Linux

proves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.

You cannot prove that code is strictly conforming empirically. It might simply happen to work on every system you've tried it on. Have you ever tested it on a system where code and data pointers are different sizes?

No, it does not. As the program is not strictly conforming
and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
execute it differently or refuse to execute.

Which non-standard extension does it use?

I think the issue is the casting of a pointer to function to a pointer
to object, which is one of the grey areas in the standard. (which occurs
in code not shown)

It is not specified that such a cast is allowed, but it also isn't
specifically disallowed, it is just omitted as a case in the listing of
te possibilities for casting.

Such code has undefined behavior "by the omission of any explicit
definition of behavior." (4p2).
Strictly conforming programs cannot have undefined behavior (4p5).

Undefined by the C Standard, but likely defined by the implementation.

Most programs don't need to be "Strictly Conforming" and most actual
practical programs are not, because they use some aspect of
implementation defined behavior.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/24 12:47, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/18/24 12:32 PM, James Kuyper wrote:

Such code has undefined behavior "by the omission of any explicit

definition of behavior." (4p2).
Strictly conforming programs cannot have undefined behavior (4p5).

Undefined by the C Standard, but likely defined by the implementation.

"Undefined behavior" is a piece of C jargon. You cannot understand the
meaning of the term by treating it as an ordinary English phrase:
"behavior which has no definition'. Rather, it is defined by the
standard to mean "behavior, upon use of a nonportable or erroneous
program construct or of erroneous data, for which this document imposes
no requirements" (3.4.3p1). To say that the behavior is "Undefined by
the C standard" is redundant - "undefined behavior" has "this document"
built into its definition. It remains undefined behavior as far as the C standard is concerned, even if some other document does define the
behavior. This is important, because strictly conforming code cannot
have undefined behavior. If the C standard has no definition for the
behavior of some code, it cannot be strictly conforming, even if some
other document does define the behavior.
The code might be perfectly safe to run on a platform where that other
document has authority - but it does so entirely because of that other document, the C standard says nothing to guarantee the behavior of such
code.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/2024 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

Hey sick asshole, talk about your arrest for possession of lots of child
porn.

https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218


"Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant in
March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
During the search, officers found three boxes filled with child
pornography, according to court documents. Investigators reportedly
seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more than 100
magazines and pictures of child pornography.

According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he believed
the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott also said
he believed that possession of the images was legal because he was God,
court documents said."


Hopefully you were chemically castrated.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 19/05/24 03:52, DFS wrote:

On 5/18/2024 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

Hey sick asshole, talk about your arrest for possession of lots of child porn.

https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218

"Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics investigation.
During the search, officers found three boxes filled with child
pornography, according to court documents. Investigators reportedly
seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.

According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he believed
the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott also said
he believed that possession of the images was legal because he was God,
court documents said."

Hopefully you were chemically castrated.

You omitted the best part: His defense was that it was legal because he
was God.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 5/18/2024 11:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 5/18/2024 6:52 PM, DFS wrote:

On 5/18/2024 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

Hey sick asshole, talk about your arrest for possession of lots of
child porn.

https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218


"Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.

According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
he was God, court documents said."


Hopefully you were chemically castrated.

Holy Cow! I thought you were just trying to troll him.

Not so fast there:

1. We have no way of knowing if our PO selected the name from the
internet in order to add to his trolling bait. We hear about this child
porno periodically. I haven't heard anyone positively link the two PO.

2. We have no way to verify that this PO has cancer or if it was just an
escape invented when Ben push him into a corner (maybe a year ago?). He
was caught and documented making many incorrect and directly
contradictory statements. In fact it was shown that he could contradict
himself where all statements were incorrect!

3. I might have believed all this nonsense if there was a fifth stage
brain cancer with worms eating what's left of his brain. But follicular lymphoma is no excuse for the brain function (or lack thereof) displayed
in these forums.

Either this PO has a totally miswired brain or he is a totally competent
troll. There is a third possibility to consider: He is just as socially
inept in human encounter as he is relating to people in theses groups.
In other words he is lonesome! Trolling serves the same purpose for him
as masturbating does a socially awkward teenager. I believe this to be
the case and it's obviously up to each individual whether they want to
have a circle jerk with him or not.

Richard, Mikko, Fred Z., joes, wij, immibis, and numerous others seem to
know quite a bit more than our PO but seem to be bitten by seem strange compulsion to debate him. Of course that's utter nonsense. Give it a
rest. I did and found many other ways to occupy my time that are a hell
of a lot more interesting.

I hope you all find a way back to a normal life.
--
Jeff Barnett

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-05-18 16:49:24 +0000, James Kuyper said:

On 5/18/24 12:01, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
...

On 2024-05-15 15:24:57 +0000, olcott said:

...

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);

...

Another issue seems to be that in the declaration of H:
int H(ptr x, ptr x);
both parameters have the same name.
(Olcott is famous for using the same name for different objects.)

The standard requires that different entities designated by the same identifier must either have different scopes or different namespaces. (6.2.1p2). In a function declaration that is not part of a function definition, the parameter names have all function prototype scope
(6.2.1p4) and belong to the ordinary identifier name space (6.2.3p1).
This is not labelled as a constraint or syntax error, but the standard
fails to say what should be done with code that doesn't follow this
rule, so the behavior is undefined "by omission of any explicit
definition of the behavior".

In a function definition, the parameter names have block scope and
belong to the ordinary identifier name space, and therefore must not
only avoid duplicating each other, but must also avoid duplicating any identifier declared in the outermost block of the function.

Thank you. That is what I wanted to know.

Which version of the standard do the references refer to? I don't expect
these things vary from one version to the next but section and paragraph numbers might.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-05-18 19:03:41 +0000, Keith Thompson said:

If something in comp.theory raises a question about C, I suggest
starting a new thread in comp.lang.c rather than cross-posting.

Thanks, I'll try to remember that next time. Or at least to set
Followup_To.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/18/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/18/2024 8:52 PM, DFS wrote:

On 5/18/2024 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

Hey sick asshole, talk about your arrest for possession of lots of
child porn.

https://www.ketv.com/article/man-believed-child-porn-was-legal-because-he-was-god-authorities-say/7652218


"Members of the Papillion Police Department executed a search warrant
in March at Peter Olcott Jr.'s home as part of a narcotics
investigation. During the search, officers found three boxes filled
with child pornography, according to court documents. Investigators
reportedly seized 30 VHS tapes of suspected child pornography and more
than 100 magazines and pictures of child pornography.

According to court documents, Olcott told investigators that he
believed the images were legal as defined by the Supreme Court. Olcott
also said he believed that possession of the images was legal because
he was God, court documents said."


Hopefully you were chemically castrated.

The case was dismissed November 17, 2016
I am diagnosed with POD24.

So? That doesn't mean you didn't do it.

Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/

So your time is short, so you shouldn't waste it on trying to argue
points that have already been disproven.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 19/05/24 21:48, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

No shit. Sick. Puke! Wow.

If olcott loves child porn and claims to be a god, well... Is there any
hope? Puke! Gross. Sick fuck!

I am not commenting on Olcott's habits but in this exchange, you are the
troll. Please cease.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 20/05/2024 11:16, immibis wrote:

On 19/05/24 21:48, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

No shit. Sick. Puke! Wow.


If olcott loves child porn and claims to be a god, well... Is there
any hope? Puke! Gross. Sick fuck!

I am not commenting on Olcott's habits but in this exchange, you are the troll. Please cease.

Indeed.

If someone has hard evidence of a crime (claiming to be "god" is not a
crime), take it to the relevant authorities - don't spout it here. If
you don't have evidence, then accusations are public humiliation and
lynching. That in itself is likely to be criminal, or at least liable,
and is morally unjustifiable here. It is particularly reprehensible to
do so on no more basis than some posts by unknown people about other
unknown people. Two vital principles for modern society are that people
are innocent until proven guilty, and that establishing guilt and meting
out punishment is handled by designated authorities and not private
individuals - these apply to everyone.

It is appropriate to call out someone /here/ if they post something
illegal, offensive, or outside the norms of public decency /here/, in
one of these newsgroups. It is not appropriate to spread or promote
vicious rumours where we have no idea if they are true or not, no way of knowing if they are true or not, and which, if true, should be handled
in a totally different context.

Olcott has posted (yet again) about his ideas regarding halting
behaviour. Let's all stick to that, responding in whatever way you
think suits - supporting his ideas, arguing against them, ridiculing
them, giving advice, telling him that they are way off-topic for
comp.lang.c, ignoring him, killfiling him, or whatever.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

In article <v2fe1h$3vicu$1@dont-email.me>,
Somebody <somebody@somewhere.someplace> wrote:

On 20/05/2024 11:16, someID wrote:

On 19/05/24 21:48, someone else wrote:

No shit. Sick. Puke! Wow.


If olcott loves child porn and claims to be a god, well... Is there
any hope? Puke! Gross. Sick fuck!

I am not commenting on Olcott's habits but in this exchange, you are the
troll. Please cease.

Indeed.

Rest of post deleted, because it is wrong on so many levels, starting with
the legal opinions expressed therein. Do not have time to go through it point-by-point, but clearly, do not rely on this guy for legal (or any
other kind of) advice.

--
Christianity is not a religion.

- Rick C Hodgin -

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

In article <v2fe1h$3vicu$1@dont-email.me>,
Somebody <somebody@somewhere.someplace> wrote:

On 20/05/2024 11:16, someID wrote:

[ .... ]

I am not commenting on Olcott's habits but in this exchange, you are
the troll. Please cease.

Indeed.

Rest of post deleted, because it is wrong on so many levels, starting with the legal opinions expressed therein. Do not have time to go through it point-by-point, but clearly, do not rely on this guy for legal (or any
other kind of) advice.

One thing David got right is that allegations of criminal activity do not belong in either of the two newsgroups cross-posted to. They're
off-topic, whatever else they may be.

--
Christianity is not a religion.

- Rick C Hodgin -

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

In article <878r04kx6u.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/18/2024 7:22 PM, immibis wrote:

On 19/05/24 03:52, DFS wrote:

[accusations against olcott snipped]

I did not know about any of this. I got overheated. Sorry.

Does your use of the word "Sorry" imply that you will refrain from
off-topic posts to comp.lang.c in the future?

Nice to see Keith the Enforcer back on the job. We've missed you.

--
Adderall, pseudoephed, teleprompter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 20/05/24 14:00, David Brown wrote:

On 20/05/2024 11:16, immibis wrote:

On 19/05/24 21:48, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

No shit. Sick. Puke! Wow.


If olcott loves child porn and claims to be a god, well... Is there
any hope? Puke! Gross. Sick fuck!

I am not commenting on Olcott's habits but in this exchange, you are
the troll. Please cease.

Indeed.

If someone has hard evidence of a crime (claiming to be "god" is not a crime), take it to the relevant authorities

Be aware that Peter Olcott was already convicted, sentenced, jailed, and released for possession of child pornography. His legal defense of being
God did not work. None of this was speculation by Chris, but he is still
a troll.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

In article <87msojk9qo.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

immibis <news@immibis.com> writes:
[...]

Be aware that Peter Olcott was

[snip]

Do you have something to say about C? If not, please don't post to >comp.lang.c.

You tell 'em, Keith!

Good to see you back on the job!

--
"He is exactly as they taught in KGB school: an egoist, a liar, but talented - he
knows the mind of the wrestling-loving, under-educated, authoritarian-admiring white male populous."
- Malcolm Nance, p59. -

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 21/05/24 10:52, Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <87msojk9qo.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

immibis <news@immibis.com> writes:
[...]

Be aware that Peter Olcott was

[snip]

Do you have something to say about C? If not, please don't post to
comp.lang.c.

You tell 'em, Keith!

Good to see you back on the job!

Your followup is even more off-topic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 20/05/2024 20:28, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 5/20/2024 5:00 AM, David Brown wrote:

On 20/05/2024 11:16, immibis wrote:

On 19/05/24 21:48, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

I am not commenting on Olcott's habits but in this exchange, you are
the troll. Please cease.

Indeed.[...]

Yeeah, well shit happens. Notice I prefixed my comment with the word
_if_? I was in a bit of a state of shock. I personally don't take kindly
to crap of that particular type...

This is not "shit happens". It is a case of people (not just you)
deliberately and knowingly posting shit. Stop making pathetic excuses
or dismissing it. Yes, I saw the "if" - it was a feeble shield. (And
before you make your next inevitable excuse about "child abuse makes me
so angry that I lashed out", first find someone who is /not/ made angry
by child abuse.)

You should react against abuse of any kind when you see it. Report it
if appropriate, or write posts against it (snipping the abuse itself) -
make it clear that it is not acceptable in any community you are part
of. But vigilantism and lynching - attacking individuals - has no more
place here or anywhere else than other abuse.

Online abuse and public humiliation destroys peoples' lives. This is especially the case when the targets are innocent - and neither you nor
I know if the poster "olcott" is guilty or innocent (or was found
guilty, served his sentence, and is no longer a criminal).

You should take time to think about what kind of person you are, or want
to be. Ask yourself if you are the kind who kicks people when they are
down. Ask if you are the kind who listens to rumour and then plays
judge, jury and executioner. I don't think that is who you are, but it
is the part you - and a few others here - have played.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 21/05/2024 06:47, immibis wrote:

On 20/05/24 14:00, David Brown wrote:

On 20/05/2024 11:16, immibis wrote:

On 19/05/24 21:48, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

No shit. Sick. Puke! Wow.


If olcott loves child porn and claims to be a god, well... Is there
any hope? Puke! Gross. Sick fuck!

I am not commenting on Olcott's habits but in this exchange, you are
the troll. Please cease.

Indeed.

If someone has hard evidence of a crime (claiming to be "god" is not a
crime), take it to the relevant authorities

Be aware that Peter Olcott was already convicted, sentenced, jailed, and released [...]

None of this was speculation by Chris, but he is still
a troll.

I have no information on that. I have no reason to accept your word for
it. I have no basis for assuming that the poster here who uses the name "olcott" is the same as this "Peter Olcott" that you say is a convicted criminal.

/All/ of this was speculation by Chris, because he has no more knowledge
than I do here, and I have /no/ concrete knowledge one way or the other.
Whether any of it is true or not has no bearing on whether Chris was speculating or not, or on whether or not it is appropriate to post here.

Even if what you say is true (and I presume you believe it is true - I
have no way to know if you are mistaken or not, but equally I have no
reason to suppose you are deliberately lying), then my assumption is
that he committed a crime, was convicted in a fair trial, served his
sentence, and the matter is closed. Any long-term ramifications of his conviction - such as being barred from working with children - are
totally irrelevant to this context. Thus anyone bring this up for the
purposes or effect of public humiliation and lynching is, at best,
claiming /they/ personally have the right to punish criminals beyond the established criminal justice system. And that is only if they know,
beyond doubt, that the target of their posts is guilty of the crimes in question.

And note that someone who has been convicted of a crime and served their sentence is no longer guilty of that crime - they are an ex-criminal,
not a criminal. This does not change the history of their behaviour,
but it /does/ change their rights now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/21/24 05:36, David Brown wrote:
...

And note that someone who has been convicted of a crime and served
their sentence is no longer guilty of that crime

No, you become guilty of a crime when you commit it, and remain guilty
of it forever, regardless of whether the legal system finds you guilty
or innocent, and regardless of whether or not you ever get punished for
it. What does change once you have been fully punished for a crime is
that you no long are owed any more punishment for it.

There's a legal concept that someone who's been accused of a crime is
entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence does not make the accused actually innocent, if the accused
did in fact commit the crime. Having been proven guilty in a court of
law doesn't make the accused guilty if the accused did not in fact
commit it. This phrase is simply a summary of how the legal system is
supposed to treat you, to give you a fair chance to defend yourself.

It also doesn't apply outside the legal system. If you actually
witnessed a crime, you're not required to pretend that the perpetrator
is innocent, and if you've witnessed something exonerating, you're not
required to accept the decision of a court that incorrectly found
someone guilty. When making decisions that are not related to punishing
someone legally, such as whether or not you want to invite an accused
murderer to dinner, you're entitled to rely upon the preponderance of
the evidence you're aware of - you don't need to wait for the legal
system to make it's decision on the matter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/21/24 05:36, David Brown wrote:
...

so angry that I lashed out", first find someone who is /not/ made angry
by child abuse.)

There are many people who object strenuously to having certain practices labelled child abuse. In particular, they believe that children need to
be disciplined harshly to ensure that they grow up into properly moral
adults, adults who know, in particular, that it is moral to administer
such discipline when needed. I do not agree with those attitudes, bus I
think that they do qualify as "someone who is /not/ made angry by child
abuse".

I know that there are organizations that promote the idea that child
sexual abuse should be legal; I don't know if there are any that favor
child abuse in general, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 21/05/24 17:48, James Kuyper wrote:

It also doesn't apply outside the legal system. If you actually
witnessed a crime, you're not required to pretend that the perpetrator
is innocent, and if you've witnessed something exonerating, you're not required to accept the decision of a court that incorrectly found
someone guilty.

In Germany you may be required to. Implying that someone committed a
crime which a court found them innocent of may be considered defamation
or insult. Germany has a strict lack of free speech, and can punish you
for insulting someone even if nobody else heard the insult (if they can
prove it in court). Luckily, this is still dependent on the person being insulted choosing to press charges.

When making decisions that are not related to punishing
someone legally, such as whether or not you want to invite an accused murderer to dinner, you're entitled to rely upon the preponderance of
the evidence you're aware of - you don't need to wait for the legal
system to make it's decision on the matter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 21/05/2024 17:47, James Kuyper wrote:

On 5/21/24 05:36, David Brown wrote:
...

so angry that I lashed out", first find someone who is /not/ made angry
by child abuse.)

There are many people who object strenuously to having certain practices labelled child abuse. In particular, they believe that children need to
be disciplined harshly to ensure that they grow up into properly moral adults, adults who know, in particular, that it is moral to administer
such discipline when needed. I do not agree with those attitudes, bus I
think that they do qualify as "someone who is /not/ made angry by child abuse".

That was not the kind of child abuse under discussion. But if you are considering "child abuse" in more general terms, then you would be wrong
- people who believe in "spare the rod and spoil the child", right up to
those who support the absurdly inappropriately termed "honour killing",
do so in the belief that they are doing the best for the child, and
/failing/ to discipline harshly would be child abuse.

I know that there are organizations that promote the idea that child
sexual abuse should be legal; I don't know if there are any that favor
child abuse in general, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were.

From the very little I have read of such groups, they believe children
should be free to consent to sexual behaviour - in their eyes, it is not
abuse if the child is consenting (and if the child is not consenting, as
they see it, then it /is/ child abuse and a bad thing).

What is considered "child abuse" is something that has varied in time,
varies across cultures, and varies by individuals. That makes it very difficult to define universal laws or moral codes. But while people can
have different ideas about what constitutes "child abuse", I believe
their is a strong consensus that "child abuse" is wrong - it is inherent
in the words.

However, my point was that the common excuse of "I hate this crime so
much I lashed out" is not a valid excuse. You can step in and hit a
physical bully to protect a victim, or yourself - you cannot
pre-emptively hit someone just because you hate bullying and heard it
said that they were a bully. It does not matter if the bully had been convicted of violent crimes or not. And the same applies to
psychological violence - including hanging people out in social media.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/21/24 12:10 PM, immibis wrote:

On 21/05/24 17:48, James Kuyper wrote:

It also doesn't apply outside the legal system. If you actually
witnessed a crime, you're not required to pretend that the perpetrator
is innocent, and if you've witnessed something exonerating, you're not
required to accept the decision of a court that incorrectly found
someone guilty.

In Germany you may be required to. Implying that someone committed a
crime which a court found them innocent of may be considered defamation
or insult. Germany has a strict lack of free speech, and can punish you
for insulting someone even if nobody else heard the insult (if they can
prove it in court). Luckily, this is still dependent on the person being insulted choosing to press charges.

But the story is apparently that the charges were DROPPED, not that he
was found innocent.

When making decisions that are not related to punishing
someone legally, such as whether or not you want to invite an accused
murderer to dinner, you're entitled to rely upon the preponderance of
the evidence you're aware of - you don't need to wait for the legal
system to make it's decision on the matter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 21/05/24 22:08, Keith Thompson wrote:

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/20/2024 9:47 PM, immibis wrote:

On 20/05/24 14:00, David Brown wrote:

On 20/05/2024 11:16, immibis wrote:

On 19/05/24 21:48, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

No shit. Sick. Puke! Wow.


If olcott loves child porn and claims to be a god, well... Is
there any hope? Puke! Gross. Sick fuck!

I am not commenting on Olcott's habits but in this exchange, you
are the troll. Please cease.

Indeed.

If someone has hard evidence of a crime (claiming to be "god" is
not a crime), take it to the relevant authorities

Be aware that Peter Olcott was already convicted, sentenced, jailed,
and released for possession of child pornography. His legal defense
of being God did not work. None of this was speculation by Chris,
but he is still a troll.

Well, shit. Yeah, I did troll in a sense to show my utter disgust with
people like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Fogle

And there it is, the proverbial last straw.

You apparently can't, or won't, restrain yourself from posting
completely irrelevant content to comp.lang.c. I ask you again, for
the sake of others who have not filtered you out, to stop trolling,
but I won't see it.

*PLONK*

The chief enforcer has returned. I think you generated as much traffic
on comp.lang.c as the person you are complaining about. Why don't you
just killfile him and move on? You have no actual authority, and
everyone knows that, which makes you nothing more than a Karen.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 21/05/2024 22:13, Keith Thompson wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

However, my point was that the common excuse of "I hate this crime so
much I lashed out" is not a valid excuse.

[...]

And you could have made that point without accompanying it by a long
article about various kinds of child abuse in a newsgroup that's
supposed to be about C.

You didn't have to let yourself be trolled.

I don't consider James' post to be trolling. But of course that in
itself does not mean it is appropriate to reply here. However, I
replied to that post in the group (rather than email) because it seemed
to me that a point I had made previously needed clarification.

As has been pointed out by others, topicality in this thread was doomed
from the first post. I'd be happier if Olcott had never cross-posted
here, but we can't change that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/21/24 12:10, immibis wrote:

On 21/05/24 17:48, James Kuyper wrote:

It also doesn't apply outside the legal system. If you actually
witnessed a crime, you're not required to pretend that the perpetrator
is innocent, and if you've witnessed something exonerating, you're not
required to accept the decision of a court that incorrectly found
someone guilty.

In Germany you may be required to. ...

No one can force you to believe that the court was correct in its
decision. They may prohibit you from expressing that opinion, but they
can't prevent you from holding it.

... Implying that someone committed a
crime which a court found them innocent of may be considered defamation
or insult.

That's ridiculous - one of the most important purposes of freedom of
speech is to be able hold government officials accountable for failing
to do their job correctly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

In article <v2l27f$17rb6$1@dont-email.me>,
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

On 5/21/24 12:10, immibis wrote:

On 21/05/24 17:48, James Kuyper wrote:

It also doesn't apply outside the legal system. If you actually
witnessed a crime, you're not required to pretend that the perpetrator
is innocent, and if you've witnessed something exonerating, you're not
required to accept the decision of a court that incorrectly found
someone guilty.

In Germany you may be required to. ...

No one can force you to believe that the court was correct in its
decision. They may prohibit you from expressing that opinion, but they
can't prevent you from holding it.

They're working on it. Thought control is just around the next corner.

... Implying that someone committed a
crime which a court found them innocent of may be considered defamation
or insult.

That's ridiculous - one of the most important purposes of freedom of
speech is to be able hold government officials accountable for failing
to do their job correctly.

As immibis stated, they don't *have* "freedom of speech" in Germany. And for good reason - look what they did with it the last time they had it.

And your assuming that they do, falls under the category that I noted in an earlier post - that people like you (and Davy) are making the classical American mistake of assuming that what may be true here is true/applicable everywhere.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ModernXtian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 22/05/2024 17:15, James Kuyper wrote:

On 5/21/24 12:10, immibis wrote:

On 21/05/24 17:48, James Kuyper wrote:

It also doesn't apply outside the legal system. If you actually
witnessed a crime, you're not required to pretend that the perpetrator
is innocent, and if you've witnessed something exonerating, you're not
required to accept the decision of a court that incorrectly found
someone guilty.

In Germany you may be required to. ...

No one can force you to believe that the court was correct in its
decision. They may prohibit you from expressing that opinion, but they
can't prevent you from holding it.

... Implying that someone committed a
crime which a court found them innocent of may be considered defamation
or insult.

That's ridiculous - one of the most important purposes of freedom of
speech is to be able hold government officials accountable for failing
to do their job correctly.

Court authorities (judges) are not government officials. Courts should
hold government officials accountable, while like all national bodies
the courts should be answerable to relevant government departments. And governments should be answerable to the electorate.

There's only three national systems that I can claim to know anything
about (and I don't claim to be remotely expert on any of them) - Norway,
the UK (including the partially autonomous Scotland) and the USA. It is
easy to find aspects of all of these that are clearly contrary to basic democratic principles and common sense for a modern, free and open
democratic society. (And that's assuming everything is working as
intended, disregarding inefficiencies, lack of resources, loopholes, corruption, or other abuse that invariably makes things worse.) I would
not expect Germany or anywhere else to be different in this way.

But no matter what rules are in place, any choice of freedoms is always
a balance. One person's freedom to criticise a court decision, or to
call someone a criminal when a court found them innocent, will always be
at odds to another person's right to a life free from such accusations.

I don't know the details of German law, and I don't know if I would
agree with the balance it has picked here - but I do know that different countries make different trade-offs in such cases and that no one has a monopoly on the "right" choices. (But everyone is free to their opinion
on such choices.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 2024-05-22, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

As immibis stated, they don't *have* "freedom of speech" in Germany. And for good reason - look what they did with it the last time they had it.

They made paragraph-sized nouns!

--
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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-05-22 14:59:24 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/22/2024 3:50 AM, David Brown wrote:

On 21/05/2024 22:13, Keith Thompson wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

However, my point was that the common excuse of "I hate this crime so
much I lashed out" is not a valid excuse.

[...]

And you could have made that point without accompanying it by a long
article about various kinds of child abuse in a newsgroup that's
supposed to be about C.

You didn't have to let yourself be trolled.

I don't consider James' post to be trolling.  But of course that in
itself does not mean it is appropriate to reply here.  However, I
replied to that post in the group (rather than email) because it seemed
to me that a point I had made previously needed clarification.

As has been pointed out by others, topicality in this thread was doomed
from the first post.  I'd be happier if Olcott had never cross-posted
here, but we can't change that.

*Someone could simply answer the question instead of*
*spending countless messages on dodging the question*

For every H/D pair matching the following template where
H is a pure function:

Does any D correctly simulated by H reach its own line 06 and
halt or does the fact that D remains stuck in recursive simulation
prevent that?

typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01 int D(ptr p)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 return 0;
13 }

It is trivial to see that for every H/D pair of the infinite
set of H/D pairs that match the above template that

D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
state at line 06 and halt because D correctly simulated by
H remains stuck in recursive simulation.

This provides the basis for simulating termination analyzer H to
correctly determine that the halting problem's counter-example
input D cannot possibly halt.

Someone already pointed out that the question is ill-posed (undefined
and insonsistently used symbols). No reason to expect any other answer.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory

On 5/22/24 01:40, immibis wrote:

On 21/05/24 22:08, Keith Thompson wrote:

...

You apparently can't, or won't, restrain yourself from posting
completely irrelevant content to comp.lang.c. I ask you again, for
the sake of others who have not filtered you out, to stop trolling,
but I won't see it.

*PLONK*

The chief enforcer has returned.

What enforcement capabilities do you think he has? This is an
unmoderated newsgroup - no one has the power to enforce any rules. If
anyone did have the power to enforce rules on this newsgroup, I would
have to say that they're doing it very badly.

I think you generated as much traffic

on comp.lang.c as the person you are complaining about.

Yes, but almost all of Keith's traffics has been on-topic. Chris lost
all sight of topicality years ago.

... Why don't you just killfile him and move on? ...

That's what "PLONK" means - that Keith is adding him to the killfile.

... You have no actual authority,

When has he ever suggested that he did? He has never said "You must not
do this or I will punish you", which is what he would be able to do if
he had authority. Instead, he says "You shouldn't do this, and here are
the reasons why:", which is precisely the most that any reasonable
person without authority can do about something like this.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-05-23 13:09:01 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/23/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-22 14:59:24 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/22/2024 3:50 AM, David Brown wrote:

On 21/05/2024 22:13, Keith Thompson wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

However, my point was that the common excuse of "I hate this crime so >>>>>> much I lashed out" is not a valid excuse.

[...]

And you could have made that point without accompanying it by a long >>>>> article about various kinds of child abuse in a newsgroup that's
supposed to be about C.

You didn't have to let yourself be trolled.

I don't consider James' post to be trolling.  But of course that in
itself does not mean it is appropriate to reply here.  However, I
replied to that post in the group (rather than email) because it seemed >>>> to me that a point I had made previously needed clarification.

As has been pointed out by others, topicality in this thread was doomed >>>> from the first post.  I'd be happier if Olcott had never cross-posted
here, but we can't change that.

*Someone could simply answer the question instead of*
*spending countless messages on dodging the question*

For every H/D pair matching the following template where
H is a pure function:

Does any D correctly simulated by H reach its own line 06 and
halt or does the fact that D remains stuck in recursive simulation
prevent that?

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int D(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         H(D,D);
12         return 0;
13       }

It is trivial to see that for every H/D pair of the infinite
set of H/D pairs that match the above template that

D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
state at line 06 and halt because D correctly simulated by
H remains stuck in recursive simulation.

This provides the basis for simulating termination analyzer H to
correctly determine that the halting problem's counter-example
input D cannot possibly halt.

Someone already pointed out that the question is ill-posed (undefined
and insonsistently used symbols). No reason to expect any other answer.

That assessment can only come from not carefully looking at what I said.
It is dead obvious that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in
recursive simulation thus cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and
halt.

That is possible. What you said is scattered over so many messages
that nobody can be expedted to carefully look at all of them.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-05-24 13:03:47 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/24/2024 5:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-23 13:09:01 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/23/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-22 14:59:24 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/22/2024 3:50 AM, David Brown wrote:

On 21/05/2024 22:13, Keith Thompson wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]

However, my point was that the common excuse of "I hate this crime so >>>>>>>> much I lashed out" is not a valid excuse.

[...]

And you could have made that point without accompanying it by a long >>>>>>> article about various kinds of child abuse in a newsgroup that's >>>>>>> supposed to be about C.

You didn't have to let yourself be trolled.

I don't consider James' post to be trolling.  But of course that in >>>>>> itself does not mean it is appropriate to reply here.  However, I
replied to that post in the group (rather than email) because it seemed >>>>>> to me that a point I had made previously needed clarification.

As has been pointed out by others, topicality in this thread was doomed >>>>>> from the first post.  I'd be happier if Olcott had never cross-posted >>>>>> here, but we can't change that.

*Someone could simply answer the question instead of*
*spending countless messages on dodging the question*

For every H/D pair matching the following template where
H is a pure function:

Does any D correctly simulated by H reach its own line 06 and
halt or does the fact that D remains stuck in recursive simulation
prevent that?

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int D(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         H(D,D);
12         return 0;
13       }

It is trivial to see that for every H/D pair of the infinite
set of H/D pairs that match the above template that

D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
state at line 06 and halt because D correctly simulated by
H remains stuck in recursive simulation.

This provides the basis for simulating termination analyzer H to
correctly determine that the halting problem's counter-example
input D cannot possibly halt.

Someone already pointed out that the question is ill-posed (undefined
and insonsistently used symbols). No reason to expect any other answer. >>>>

That assessment can only come from not carefully looking at what I said. >>> It is dead obvious that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in
recursive simulation thus cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and
halt.

That is possible. What you said is scattered over so many messages
that nobody can be expedted to carefully look at all of them.

typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01 int D(ptr p)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 return 0;
13 }

The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D pair
was being referred to.

*Correct Simulation Defined*
This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
correct simulation that diverges from this notion.

A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates at least one
of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
instructions of D.

This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
recursive simulation.

*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, 02, and 03
of D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless
recursive simulation.

I think all C questions are already answered.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)