Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simply defining =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6del?= Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:13:29 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 81 Message-ID: <87ime3a1ee.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <87lfj3d2fn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87ft9bd1nz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87a6zjcu95.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <874kprcno2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87h7trb36f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87pn8e9vj3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87a6zh99n7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87r1sra2p8.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e3e3591f5b843c6e8102a82017b14bcb"; logging-data="11426"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Cfa5K9UmQ17ygjx2o/KX9" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:UWQ1/JQBrOJfabjELJ+k8ZwNKG8= sha1:R45288qxurr5WUx/QfKh8Ct6m+A= Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:22062 olcott writes: > On 7/31/2020 2:45 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> olcott writes: >>> On 7/29/2020 10:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> [...] >>>> Scratch that. I meant: >>>> >>>> > int foo(int x, int y) { >>>> >      return (x + y) % 12; >>>> > } >>> >>> Within the "c" programming language the interpretation is hard-coded >>> into the syntax. >> >> No, C specifies syntax and semantics separately. It even uses those > > Yeah maybe some "c" compilers "interpret" this to mean: > print("Hello World!\n"); What? No, that's not at all what I meant. The fact that + is an operator and x + y is an expression is specified by the *syntax* of C. The fact that the + operator performs addition is part of the *semantics*. They're different things, specified separately in the C standard, in clearly labeled sections. Your claim that Within the "c" programming language the interpretation is hard-coded into the syntax. is just wrong (assuming you're using words with conventional meanings). >> words, so it's easy to see the distinction in the language standard. >> >>> The ordered pair of <0...sizeof(x), 0...sizeof(y)> >>> maps to a set of integer values. >> >> I'm not sure what that punctuation salad is supposed to mean, but >> I'm sure there's a much better way to express it. One obvious flaw > >> is that sizeof(x) has nothing to do with this. (Well, not quite >> nothing, but the relevance is extremely indirect.) > > What is the sum of 0xffffffff + 0xffffffff of 32-bit integers? Again, you use of "sizeof" above is incorrect. Do you understand that? If you don't, would you like me to explain? If so, I'll first ask you to rephrase your statement The ordered pair of <0...sizeof(x), 0...sizeof(y)> maps to a set of integer values. so I can figure out what you meant. (I can guess, but I'm unwilling to rely on that guess.) If "..." is intended to denote a range, and sizeof(x) is 4, then I don't see how the range 0....4 is relevant. BTW, your question above is ambiguous, and a complete answer would require going into more detail about C integer types than seems relevant. If you'd like that complete answer, say so and I'll provide it. [...] >>>>> What exactly does the above function do? >>>>> >>>>> Your answer will almost certainly be one possible interpretation of >>>>> this function, but there are others. If you answer the above >>>>> question, I will illustrate this. >>> >>> There is only a single correct intepretation. >> >> That implies a fundamental misunderstanding of the C programming >> language. I'll explain further if you ask. I won't assume that you >> want to know. So you don't want to know. If you don't care about the fact that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the C programming language, then anything you say about it is meaningless, and I'll strongly suggest that you stop using C to express your ideas. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */