On 26/08/2025 16:44, olcott wrote:
On 8/26/2025 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-19 14:51:53 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/19/2025 2:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-18 20:35:30 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
I still haven't figured out if Olcott's obtuseness is wilful
or innate.
It doesn't matter. The only thing we can do is to point out that
the truth is different.
If people pay close enough attention they see that I am correct.
People who have paid close enough attention have seen your
mistakes.
For example:
On 8/18/2025 6:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
It is an easily verified fact, as you love to say,
that if DD calls HHH (as it does) and HHH calls DD
(as, through simulation, it effectively does) that
HHH(DD) can never halt naturally, so it will have
to abort the recursion and report its result as 0
- didn't halt.
That is agreement that DD correctly simulated by HHH
cannot halt because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive
simulation.
You said "correctly". I didn't.
And because HHH(DD) has to conclude that DD doesn't halt, it must
return 0 to a directly executed DD. Alas, this turns out to be
the wrong answer. Proof:
$ cat dd.c
#include <stdio.h>
#define HHH(x) 0
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
int hhh = HHH(DD);
int dd = DD();
printf("Because we got here, we know that both HHH and DD
halted.\n");
printf("But is that what they claim?\n\n");
printf("HHH(DD) yields %d (%s).\n",
hhh,
hhh ?
"halted" :
"incorrect claim of non-halting");
printf("DD yields %d (%s).\n",
dd,
dd ?
"halted" :
"incorrect claim of non-halting");
return 0;
}
$ gcc -o dd dd.c
$ ./dd
Because we got here, we know that both HHH and DD halted.
But is that what they claim?
HHH(DD) yields 0 (incorrect claim of non-halting).
DD yields 0 (incorrect claim of non-halting).
--
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)