1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Why I need to cross-post to comp.lang.c

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat May 10 10:15:04 2025
    On 2025-05-09 03:01:40 +0000, olcott said:

    On 5/8/2025 9:23 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
    Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> writes:
    On 5/8/25 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
    [...]
    void DDD()
    {
      HHH(DDD);
      return;
    }
    We don't need to look at any of my code for me
    to totally prove my point. For example when
    the above DDD is correctly simulated by HHH
    this simulated DDD cannot possibly reach its own
    "return" instruction.

    And thus not correctly simulatd.

    Sorry, there is no "OS Exemption" to correct simulaiton;.

    Perhaps I've missed something. I don't see anything in the above that
    implies that HHH does not correctly simulate DDD. Richard, you've read
    far more of olcott's posts than I have, so perhaps you can clarify.

    If we assume that HHH correctly simulates DDD, then the above code is
    equivalent to:

    void DDD()
    {
    DDD();
    return;
    }

    which is a trivial case of infinite recursion. As far as I can tell,
    assuming that DDD() is actually called at some point, neither the
    outer execution of DDD nor the nested (simulated) execution of DDD
    can reach the return statement. Infinite recursion might either
    cause a stack overflow and a probable program crash, or an unending
    loop if the compiler implements tail call optimization.

    I see no contradiction, just an uninteresting case of infinite
    recursion, something that's well understood by anyone with a
    reasonable level of programming experience. (And it has nothing to
    do with the halting problem as far as I can tell, though of course
    olcott has discussed the halting problem elsewhere.)

    Richard, what am I missing?

    *****
    Now you are seeing what I was talking about.
    Now you are seeing why I needed to cross post
    to comp.lang.c

    What were you told in comp.lang.c that you were not told in comp.theory?

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sat May 10 11:10:43 2025
    On 10/05/2025 08:15, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-05-09 03:01:40 +0000, olcott said:

    <snip>

    Now you are seeing what I was talking about.
    Now you are seeing why I needed to cross post
    to comp.lang.c

    What were you told in comp.lang.c that you were not told in
    comp.theory?

    The good folks in comp.lang.c don't have a lot of time for this
    guy these days.

    But if they had the patience to take a long hard look at his
    code, they would tell him rather more than he cares to know about
    just how broken it is.

    --
    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)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to Richard Heathfield on Sat May 10 08:30:54 2025
    On 5/10/25 6:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 10/05/2025 08:15, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-05-09 03:01:40 +0000, olcott said:

    <snip>

    Now you are seeing what I was talking about.
    Now you are seeing why I needed to cross post
    to comp.lang.c

    What were you told in comp.lang.c that you were not told in comp.theory?

    The good folks in comp.lang.c don't have a lot of time for this guy
    these days.

    But if they had the patience to take a long hard look at his code, they
    would tell him rather more than he cares to know about just how broken
    it is.


    It has already been pointed out that his code just violates what he says
    about it. It fundamentally can not be made into a "Pure Function"
    without major changes as it looks into global memory for a value
    initialized by the run time to determine if it is the "outer" version of
    the decider, or an inner version supposedly being simulated by it.

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