Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #123010

Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2025 12:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2025 8:32 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> So you still don't understand that when H sees
>>>>> that D calls the same function twice in sequence
>>>>> with the same arguments and has no conditional
>>>>> code inbetween its invocation and this function
>>>>> call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>>>
>>>> No. Obvious counterexample:
>>>>
>>>> void D(void)
>>>> {
>>>>     printf("calling this twice\n");
>>>>     // no conditionals here
>>>>     printf("calling this twice\n");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> You're simply not able to run a simple specification through your head
>>>> to identify the ways in which it might not reflect your intent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you post such ridiculous nonsense?
>> 
>> The above "D calls the same function (printf) twice in sequence with the
>> same arguments ("calling this twice\n") and has no conditional code
>> inbetween its invocation and this function call". It meets your
>> criteria; therefore it must be "isomorphic to infinite recursion".
>> 
>>> Are you a complete jackass or only partial?
>> 
>> I'm only conveying to you that the above function meets the words you
>> have written.
>> 
>
> OK then I apologize.

My eyes must be deceiving me.

>> If you didn't intend that, that is your problem. I'm just the messenger.
>> 
>> Such a messenger wouldn't be necessary if you could think for yourself.
>> 
>
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> I forgot a detail on line 996
>
> Calls the same function from the same machine address
> with no conditional branches in between its invocation
> and this function call.

Now suppose that we wrongly place execution events from all
threads into a single buffer.

It can now happen like this:

void D(void)
{
   (void) thread_create(D);
   thread_exit(0);
}

main()
{
   (void) thread_create(D);
}

The repeated call in question is D calling thread_create.

The call happens multiple times, from the same address, without
intervening conditional instructions (assuming we do not
trace system functions thread_create and thread_exit).

In our single trace buffer, it /appears/ to meet the conditions for
identifying runaway recursion.

Yet, do you not see that the threads are all terminating?

Every single new thread dispatched to D creates a new thread, which is
an asynchronous action, and then promptly terminates.

The /process/ will keep spawning new threads and fail to terminate.  But
that's not the question. When we ask whether D terminates, we are not
asking whether D is surrounded by a reality which terminates.

>> Your idea that when a decider abandons a simulation and returns zero,
>> the simuation is "totally killed" does not hold water. Mathematical
>> entities are never "killed".
>> 
>
> The above non-halting behavior axiom is correct.
> It conclusively proves the D simulated by H cannot
> possibly ever reach its own simulated "return"
> statement.

It doesn't. What is correct is the trick in the halting proof, that no
decider could be correct when deciding its diagonal case.

Those who are skeptical can dissect into particular complex cases to see
how they play out: i.e. to articulate in more detail why such and such a
diagonal pair case is incorrect. It is largely moot.

In your case, your logic is incorrect even for non-diagonal cases,
such as:

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

For this non-diagonal case, your HHH could return 1 and be correct.
DDD does not behave opposite to the 1 return value; it confirms it.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:36 -0600
  Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 -0600
    Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 02:32 +0000
      Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:38 -0600
        Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 06:35 +0000
          Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:13 -0600
            Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:01 +0000
              Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:19 -0600
  Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:39 -0600
  Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:38 +0100

csiph-web