On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
[ .... ]
Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read. All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong. Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success. Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning, combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him learning at all.
May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
Thanks!
So you are going to stupidly disagree with this?
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any
pure function HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)