Op 07.mei.2025 om 16:56 schreef olcott:

On 5/7/2025 9:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 14:22, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

There's also an important difference between claiming that Mike's
claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim is counter-
factual.

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

Yeah, you keep posting that, as if it had some kind of persuasive power.

It doesn't.

Every sufficiently competent C program has agreed.
The DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction.

Yes, because they all understand that due to a bug HHH aborts
prematurely, before it sees the code of Halt7.c, which specifies a
conditional abort.
That a bug makes that it fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, does not
show that this 'ret' instruction is unreachable.
In fact it is reachable as a verified fact, proven by direct execution
and world-class simulators.
So, I would say:

If you are totally clueless about programming you
won't get this.

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

On 07/05/2025 15:56, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 9:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 14:22, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

There's also an important difference between claiming that
Mike's claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim
is counter- factual.

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

Yeah, you keep posting that, as if it had some kind of
persuasive power.

It doesn't.

Every sufficiently competent C program has agreed.

Name one sufficiently competent C programmer who is prepared to
confirm their agreement.

The DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction.

If you are totally clueless about programming you
won't get this.

So you say. And if (as it appears) you are totally clueless about
logic, you won't get the Halting Problem proof.

Now let's look at the code.

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

The behaviour of this code depends on the HHH function, which you
don't show here.

If you care to show the /whole/ of the C code, we can talk about
what the C /actually/ does, rather than what you think it does.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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

On 5/7/25 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 9:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 14:22, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

There's also an important difference between claiming that Mike's
claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim is counter-
factual.

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

Yeah, you keep posting that, as if it had some kind of persuasive power.

It doesn't.

Every sufficiently competent C program has agreed.
The DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction.

Nope. Just prove again that you are just a liar.

If you are totally clueless about programming you
won't get this.

No, it seems you are the totally clueless one, as you don't undertstand
what a program is, and try to get away with equivocation.

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

On 08/05/2025 03:47, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/25 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

If you are totally clueless about programming you
won't get this.

No, it seems you are the totally clueless one, as you don't
undertstand what a program is, and try to get away with
equivocation.

He tries to get away with syntax errors, too. And dereferencing
null pointers.

What would your prediction be? Active denial by umbrage? Passive
denial by unresponsiveness? Or a new release of the code?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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