On 4/17/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
  int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
  HHH(DD);
}

DD simulated by HHH includes HHH simulating itself
simulating DD until HHH sees the non-terminating
pattern and rejects DD as non-terminating.

No, because a real C programmer knows that the above has EXPLICT
underfined behavior, because that program doesn't have an HHH defined.

And, if you try to equivocate and say you are including your Halt7.c to
define it, then you explaniation is wrong, as your HHH is not defined to
do that, but to only simulate the input for a little bit, then abort its simulation and return.

The problem is when you include that definition, all your descriptions
become errors.

First, HHH doesn't do what you claim, and even your question become
errors as you can't ask about the correct answer it could return, when,
because it has to be difined first, there is only one answer that it
DOES return.

You can't base the answer on it doing a correct simulation, when it
doesn't actually do one.

All you are proving is that your logic, and yourself, is just unsound,
as it is based on the assumption of false statement.

This just proves that you are nothing but a pathological liar that
doesn't understand what he is talking about.

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

On 2025-04-17 15:38:30 +0000, olcott said:

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

There is no HHH above nor any pointer to any HHH. Threfore the
behaviour is undefined.

DD simulated by HHH includes HHH simulating itself
simulating DD until HHH sees the non-terminating
pattern and rejects DD as non-terminating.

That cannot be inferred from the shown code.

--
Mikko

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

Am 17.04.2025 um 20:23 schrieb olcott:

That is an incorrect assessment of the behavior of
DD simulated by HHH that includes HHH simulating itself
simulating DD.

I am here at comp.lang.c because the all of the people on
comp.theory continue to flat out lie about this behavior
for three solid years. comp.lang.c may have trolls, yet
seem to have no liars.

Dealing with such a small topic for years with tousands of
postings - do you think that's life ?

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

On 2025-04-18 07:22:29 +0000, Bonita Montero said:

Am 17.04.2025 um 20:23 schrieb olcott:

That is an incorrect assessment of the behavior of
DD simulated by HHH that includes HHH simulating itself
simulating DD.

I am here at comp.lang.c because the all of the people on
comp.theory continue to flat out lie about this behavior
for three solid years. comp.lang.c may have trolls, yet
seem to have no liars.

This all sounds delusional to me.

The part that comp.lang.c lacked a liar sounds credible.

--
Mikko

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

On 2025-04-19 20:26:59 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/19/2025 4:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 19.04.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Mikko:

The part that comp.lang.c lacked a liar sounds credible.

I believe Peter has a serious mental illness. As far as I know,
he has cancer, and I hope he gets the most out of his remaining
life instead of obsessing over this problem.

I never go with credible, instead I try to stick with verified facts.

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

It is a verified fact that DD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly halt (terminate normally).

Verified facts should not be decorated with misleading words.

There is no other "DD correctly simulated by HHH" than the DD shown
above, and that DD halts (terminates normally).

That HHH cannot simulate DD to its normal termination is true but
that is not what the "verified fact" says.

--
Mikko

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

On 2025-04-20 15:14:11 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/20/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-19 20:26:59 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/19/2025 4:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 19.04.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Mikko:

The part that comp.lang.c lacked a liar sounds credible.

I believe Peter has a serious mental illness. As far as I know,
he has cancer, and I hope he gets the most out of his remaining
life instead of obsessing over this problem.

I never go with credible, instead I try to stick with verified facts.

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

It is a verified fact that DD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly halt (terminate normally).

Verified facts should not be decorated with misleading words.

There is no other "DD correctly simulated by HHH" than the DD shown
above, and that DD halts (terminates normally).

Why lie?

The "why" does not matter. It helps readers that your lies are pointed
out even if your motivation to lie remains obscure. Even whether your
deception is intentional or unintended does not matter, only that the
truth is told.

--
Mikko

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

On 2025-04-21 11:33:38 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/21/2025 5:28 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-20 15:14:11 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/20/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-19 20:26:59 +0000, olcott said:

On 4/19/2025 4:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 19.04.2025 um 10:03 schrieb Mikko:

The part that comp.lang.c lacked a liar sounds credible.

I believe Peter has a serious mental illness. As far as I know,
he has cancer, and I hope he gets the most out of his remaining
life instead of obsessing over this problem.

I never go with credible, instead I try to stick with verified facts. >>>>>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

It is a verified fact that DD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly halt (terminate normally).

Verified facts should not be decorated with misleading words.

There is no other "DD correctly simulated by HHH" than the DD shown
above, and that DD halts (terminates normally).

Why lie?

The "why" does not matter. It helps readers that your lies are pointed
out

I haven't even made any mistake. Why are you lying
about the behavior of DD simulated by HHH including
HHH simulating itself simulating DD?

That you call me a liar without being able to quote any lie can be called
a mistake though I would prever to call it an error. Where I live it is a
crime to call someone a liar without a proof of a lie.

--
Mikko

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