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

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #122982 > unrolled thread

D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:34 -0600
    Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:42 +0000
      Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 19:49 -0800
        Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:36 -0600
          Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-13 08:54 +0100
            Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:21 -0800
            How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0100
              Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-11-13 12:14 +0000
                Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:28 -0600
              Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:15 -0600
            Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:22 -0600
        Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:36 +0000
          Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:49 +0100
            Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:55 +0000
            Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:26 -0600
          Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:24 -0600
    Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 20:59 -0500

#122982 — D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state

On 11/12/2025 8:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> 
> If those two are in any way whatsoever different, the entire
> castle you built in the sand is washed away.
> 

*This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*
*This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*
*This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*

int D()
{
   int Halt_Status = H(D);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

Everyone here rejects that the execution trace
of 5 statements of D simulated by H according to
the semantics of C is this:

(1)    H simulates D that calls H(D)
(2) that simulates D that calls H(D)
(3) that simulates D that calls H(D)
(4) that simulates D that calls H(D)
(5) that simulates D that calls H(D)


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#122984

On 2025-11-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 8:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> 
>> If those two are in any way whatsoever different, the entire
>> castle you built in the sand is washed away.
>> 
>
> *This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*
> *This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*
> *This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*
>
> int D()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> Everyone here rejects that the execution trace
> of 5 statements of D simulated by H according to
> the semantics of C is this:
>
> (1)    H simulates D that calls H(D)
> (2) that simulates D that calls H(D)
> (3) that simulates D that calls H(D)
> (4) that simulates D that calls H(D)
> (5) that simulates D that calls H(D)

False; I have for months accepted that there is a simulation tower,
or should be if everything is done right.

Mike Terry reported cleaning up the code and getting that to happen!

He's traced it to some six or seven levels down, if I recall.

Each of the H(D)'s above, however, caries out a //limited//
simulation of the next level. The H's all partially simulate D
and then quit.

All of the D simulations are terminating.

The only non-terminating aspect is the regeneration of the
simulation tower.

But, that's not what H is asked to decide!!! H is not asked to decide
whether there is an infinite simulation tower. H is asked to decide
whether D halts.

All the D instances in the simulation tower are halting.

An infinite tower of witnesses to your stupidity.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122985

[...]

I note that a substantial fraction of the articles recently posted
to comp.lang.c (and probably comp.lang.c++) are cross-posted to
comp.theory, and are about the Halting Problem.

Some of these articles contain small fragments of C-like source code,
but I suggest that doesn't make them either topical or interesting
to most participants in the C and C++ newsgroups.

I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
even when replying to a cross-posted article.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122986

On 11/12/2025 9:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> [...]
> 
> I note that a substantial fraction of the articles recently posted
> to comp.lang.c (and probably comp.lang.c++) are cross-posted to
> comp.theory, and are about the Halting Problem.
> 
> Some of these articles contain small fragments of C-like source code,
> but I suggest that doesn't make them either topical or interesting
> to most participants in the C and C++ newsgroups.
> 
> I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
> to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
> even when replying to a cross-posted article.
> 

int D()
{
   int Halt_Status = H(D);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

I would love to do that after one person confirms
that D simulated by H according to the semantics
of the C programming language cannot reach its
own "return" statement.

People on all forums have been dodging that or
lying about that consistently for three years.

I only came to this forum to get that one question
answered and until then I will keep repeating it
several times a day forever. Feel free to keep
ignoring it now that you know the consequences.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122987

On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 9:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> I note that a substantial fraction of the articles recently posted
>> to comp.lang.c (and probably comp.lang.c++) are cross-posted to
>> comp.theory, and are about the Halting Problem.
>>
>> Some of these articles contain small fragments of C-like source code,
>> but I suggest that doesn't make them either topical or interesting
>> to most participants in the C and C++ newsgroups.
>>
>> I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
>> to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
>> even when replying to a cross-posted article.
>>
> 
> int D()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> I would love to do that after one person confirms
> that D simulated by H according to the semantics
> of the C programming language cannot reach its
> own "return" statement.
> 
> People on all forums have been dodging that or
> lying about that consistently for three years.
> 
> I only came to this forum to get that one question
> answered and until then I will keep repeating it
> several times a day forever. Feel free to keep
> ignoring it now that you know the consequences.
> 

Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same 
results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts - 
what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same 
questions and claims?

If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your 
time and everyone else's time.

If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/ 
wasting your time and everyone else's time.

If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to 
prove it.  How about you stop repeating yourself on Usenet groups 
(especially c.l.c and c.l.c++, but also comp.theory and other groups), 
and do something /useful/ with your breakthrough?  You suggested your 
solution to the halting problem could lead to a universal truth 
identifier that would save the world.  Surely that is more worthy of 
your time than beating your head against this wall?  Give up on the 
ignorant masses here, and work with the LLM's that believe in you to 
create your truth identifier.  When we hear on international news how it 
is changing the world, we'll get back to you and apologise for our lack 
of faith.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122988

On 11/12/2025 11:54 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/12/2025 9:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I note that a substantial fraction of the articles recently posted
>>> to comp.lang.c (and probably comp.lang.c++) are cross-posted to
>>> comp.theory, and are about the Halting Problem.
>>>
>>> Some of these articles contain small fragments of C-like source code,
>>> but I suggest that doesn't make them either topical or interesting
>>> to most participants in the C and C++ newsgroups.
>>>
>>> I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
>>> to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
>>> even when replying to a cross-posted article.
>>>
>>
>> int D()
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> I would love to do that after one person confirms
>> that D simulated by H according to the semantics
>> of the C programming language cannot reach its
>> own "return" statement.
>>
>> People on all forums have been dodging that or
>> lying about that consistently for three years.
>>
>> I only came to this forum to get that one question
>> answered and until then I will keep repeating it
>> several times a day forever. Feel free to keep
>> ignoring it now that you know the consequences.
>>
> 
> Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same 
> results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts - 
> what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same 
> questions and claims?
> 
> If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your 
> time and everyone else's time.
> 
> If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/ 
> wasting your time and everyone else's time.
> 
> If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to 
> prove it.  How about you stop repeating yourself on Usenet groups 
> (especially c.l.c and c.l.c++, but also comp.theory and other groups), 
> and do something /useful/ with your breakthrough?  You suggested your 
> solution to the halting problem could lead to a universal truth 
> identifier that would save the world.  Surely that is more worthy of 
> your time than beating your head against this wall?  Give up on the 
> ignorant masses here, and work with the LLM's that believe in you to 
> create your truth identifier.  When we hear on international news how it 
> is changing the world, we'll get back to you and apologise for our lack 
> of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122989 — How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...)

On 13.11.2025 08:54, David Brown wrote:
> On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same
> results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts -
> what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same
> questions and claims?
> 
> If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your
> time and everyone else's time.
> 
> If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/
> wasting your time and everyone else's time.
> 
> If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to
> prove it.  [...and so on, in a (IMO hopeless) try to get through...]

You're probably assuming a normal, non-pathological case, since
you're obviously trying it with sensible rational suggestions.

If, for a moment, we'd presume - just as a working hypothesis - a
pathological case then all such tries and suggestions are likely
doomed to fail, and we need another way to handle that.

So let's presume another hypothesis; making no replies to his posts
results in no pathological floods of such posts. - I invite you all
to do that so that we can see what happens, whether the hypothesis
is correct or not. - If we're lucky, at some point there will be
quietness again on this topic.

And if he's still continuing just let a simple message-filter handle
that.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122990 — Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...)

On 13/11/2025 10:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 13.11.2025 08:54, David Brown wrote:
>> On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same
>> results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts -
>> what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same
>> questions and claims?
>>
>> If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your
>> time and everyone else's time.
>>
>> If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/
>> wasting your time and everyone else's time.
>>
>> If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to
>> prove it.  [...and so on, in a (IMO hopeless) try to get through...]
> 
> You're probably assuming a normal, non-pathological case, since
> you're obviously trying it with sensible rational suggestions.
> 
> If, for a moment, we'd presume - just as a working hypothesis - a
> pathological case then all such tries and suggestions are likely
> doomed to fail, and we need another way to handle that.
> 
> So let's presume another hypothesis; making no replies to his posts
> results in no pathological floods of such posts. - I invite you all
> to do that so that we can see what happens, whether the hypothesis
> is correct or not. - If we're lucky, at some point there will be
> quietness again on this topic.
> 
> And if he's still continuing just let a simple message-filter handle
> that.

"What to do when the trisector comes?"

This is Google's AI summary, which will be an LLM, so I'm sure olcott 
will have no choice but to approve ...

"""
When a "trisector" comes, which refers to someone who claims to have 
solved the impossible problem of trisecting an angle with only a compass 
and straightedge, you should politely disengage. Do not argue with them, 
but also do not try to "help" them or validate their work, as this can 
lead to frustration and conflict. Your best course of action is to 
detach yourself from the situation by moving away as quickly as possible.

o Do not argue: The problem of angle trisection with only a compass and 
straightedge has been proven mathematically impossible. Engaging in a 
debate is likely to be unproductive and frustrating.

o Do not try to help: Attempts to guide them or point out their errors 
are generally not effective and can be perceived as condescending.

o Remove yourself from the situation: The most practical and respectful 
action is to end the conversation and move away from the person. The 
article "What to Do When the Trisector Comes" humorously suggests this 
involves using your legs to leave.
"""

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122998 — Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...)

On 11/13/2025 6:14 AM, Richard Harnden wrote:
> On 13/11/2025 10:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 13.11.2025 08:54, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same
>>> results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts -
>>> what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same
>>> questions and claims?
>>>
>>> If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your
>>> time and everyone else's time.
>>>
>>> If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/
>>> wasting your time and everyone else's time.
>>>
>>> If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to
>>> prove it.  [...and so on, in a (IMO hopeless) try to get through...]
>>
>> You're probably assuming a normal, non-pathological case, since
>> you're obviously trying it with sensible rational suggestions.
>>
>> If, for a moment, we'd presume - just as a working hypothesis - a
>> pathological case then all such tries and suggestions are likely
>> doomed to fail, and we need another way to handle that.
>>
>> So let's presume another hypothesis; making no replies to his posts
>> results in no pathological floods of such posts. - I invite you all
>> to do that so that we can see what happens, whether the hypothesis
>> is correct or not. - If we're lucky, at some point there will be
>> quietness again on this topic.
>>
>> And if he's still continuing just let a simple message-filter handle
>> that.
> 
> "What to do when the trisector comes?"
> 

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

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

int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}

This code has been fully operational
for three years so I know what it does.

That no one else has been able to confirm
that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction has been
the issue that everyone has ignored or lied
about for three years.

In other words you are trying to get away
with saying that you are an expert C programmer
that cannot possibly recognize a behavior pattern
that is isomorphic to infinite recursion.

> This is Google's AI summary, which will be an LLM, so I'm sure olcott 
> will have no choice but to approve ...
> 
> """
> When a "trisector" comes, which refers to someone who claims to have 
> solved the impossible problem of trisecting an angle with only a compass 
> and straightedge, you should politely disengage. Do not argue with them, 
> but also do not try to "help" them or validate their work, as this can 
> lead to frustration and conflict. Your best course of action is to 
> detach yourself from the situation by moving away as quickly as possible.
> 
> o Do not argue: The problem of angle trisection with only a compass and 
> straightedge has been proven mathematically impossible. Engaging in a 
> debate is likely to be unproductive and frustrating.
> 
> o Do not try to help: Attempts to guide them or point out their errors 
> are generally not effective and can be perceived as condescending.
> 
> o Remove yourself from the situation: The most practical and respectful 
> action is to end the conversation and move away from the person. The 
> article "What to Do When the Trisector Comes" humorously suggests this 
> involves using your legs to leave.
> """
> 
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122994 — Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...)

On 11/13/2025 4:18 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 13.11.2025 08:54, David Brown wrote:
>> On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same
>> results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts -
>> what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same
>> questions and claims?
>>
>> If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your
>> time and everyone else's time.
>>
>> If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/
>> wasting your time and everyone else's time.
>>
>> If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to
>> prove it.  [...and so on, in a (IMO hopeless) try to get through...]
> 
> You're probably assuming a normal, non-pathological case, since
> you're obviously trying it with sensible rational suggestions.
> 
> If, for a moment, we'd presume - just as a working hypothesis - a
> pathological case then all such tries and suggestions are likely
> doomed to fail, and we need another way to handle that.
> 
> So let's presume another hypothesis; making no replies to his posts
> results in no pathological floods of such posts. - I invite you all
> to do that so that we can see what happens, whether the hypothesis
> is correct or not. - If we're lucky, at some point there will be
> quietness again on this topic.
> 
> And if he's still continuing just let a simple message-filter handle
> that.
> 
> Janis
> 

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

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

int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}

This code has been fully operational
for three years so I know what it does.

That no one else has been able to confirm
that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction has been
the issue that everyone has ignored or lied
about for three years.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122995

On 11/13/2025 1:54 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 13/11/2025 05:36, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/12/2025 9:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I note that a substantial fraction of the articles recently posted
>>> to comp.lang.c (and probably comp.lang.c++) are cross-posted to
>>> comp.theory, and are about the Halting Problem.
>>>
>>> Some of these articles contain small fragments of C-like source code,
>>> but I suggest that doesn't make them either topical or interesting
>>> to most participants in the C and C++ newsgroups.
>>>
>>> I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
>>> to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
>>> even when replying to a cross-posted article.
>>>
>>
>> int D()
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> I would love to do that after one person confirms
>> that D simulated by H according to the semantics
>> of the C programming language cannot reach its
>> own "return" statement.
>>
>> People on all forums have been dodging that or
>> lying about that consistently for three years.
>>
>> I only came to this forum to get that one question
>> answered and until then I will keep repeating it
>> several times a day forever. Feel free to keep
>> ignoring it now that you know the consequences.
>>
> 
> Given that you've been doing this for so many years, and got the same 
> results every time - everyone disagrees with your fundamental concepts - 
> what makes you think you can change people's minds by repeating the same 
> questions and claims?
> 
> If you are wrong, and everyone else is right, then you are wasting your 
> time and everyone else's time.
> 
> If you are right and everyone else is wrong, then your posts are /still/ 
> wasting your time and everyone else's time.
> 

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

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

int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}

This code has been fully operational
for three years so I know what it does.

That no one else has been able to confirm
that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction has been
the issue that everyone has ignored or lied
about for three years.

This is the first step of my important proof.
This first step is entirely appropriate for
the C/C++ groups. After this first step is
accepted I will move this discussion back to
comp.theory.

The people on comp.theory have been stonewalling
me on this for three years. Even the most competent
people have taken to flat out lying.

> If you are sure you are correct, you have to find a different way to 
> prove it.  How about you stop repeating yourself on Usenet groups 
> (especially c.l.c and c.l.c++, but also comp.theory and other groups), 
> and do something /useful/ with your breakthrough?  You suggested your 
> solution to the halting problem could lead to a universal truth 
> identifier that would save the world.  Surely that is more worthy of 
> your time than beating your head against this wall?  Give up on the 
> ignorant masses here, and work with the LLM's that believe in you to 
> create your truth identifier.  When we hear on international news how it 
> is changing the world, we'll get back to you and apologise for our lack 
> of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122991 — Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

In article <87a50qpp5n.fsf@example.invalid>,
Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>I note that a substantial fraction of the articles recently posted
>to comp.lang.c (and probably comp.lang.c++) are cross-posted to
>comp.theory, and are about the Halting Problem.
>
>Some of these articles contain small fragments of C-like source code,
>but I suggest that doesn't make them either topical or interesting
>to most participants in the C and C++ newsgroups.
>
>I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
>to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
>even when replying to a cross-posted article.

Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your
killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?

I have not done this (yet); my killfile kills only articles *by* olcott.  I
still have to manually kill any responses to his posts.  It would, of
course, be nice if we could get people to stop responding to his junk, but
that'd be like expecting the tides to turn.

But I think it (killing any article that contains the string) is the right
thing to do (*), and will do so when I get around to it.

(*) I don't know (yet) if there is a more direct way to kill (in trn) any
article from a given user and plus all followups - in a single go.
Obviously, that would be the real/ideal solution to this problem.

-- 
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122992 — Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

On 13.11.2025 13:36, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> [...]
>> I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
>> to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
>> even when replying to a cross-posted article.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your
> killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?

The problem is that pathological people seem to ignore and circumvent
that by changing name, email, and subject to get through; most similar
to what ads, prn, fraud, etc. do.

> 
> I have not done this (yet); my killfile kills only articles *by* olcott. 

Same here.

> I still have to manually kill any responses to his posts.  It would, of
> course, be nice if we could get people to stop responding to his junk, but
> that'd be like expecting the tides to turn.
> 
> But I think it (killing any article that contains the string) is the right
> thing to do (*), and will do so when I get around to it.
> 
> (*) I don't know (yet) if there is a more direct way to kill (in trn) any
> article from a given user and plus all followups - in a single go.
> Obviously, that would be the real/ideal solution to this problem.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122993 — Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

In article <10f4k4l$25a78$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou  <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 13.11.2025 13:36, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
>>> to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
>>> even when replying to a cross-posted article.
>> 
>> Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your
>> killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?
>
>The problem is that pathological people seem to ignore and circumvent
>that by changing name, email, and subject to get through; most similar
>to what ads, prn, fraud, etc. do.

There may be a misunderstanding here.

When I said "any article that contains", I meant a full-text search, not
just a header search.  So, as long as the string occurs anywhere in the
article - which it almost always does - the search would find it and kill
it.

Obviously, this all depends on your newsreader, but I know trn allows this
type of search/kill.

I meant to mention this (that I was talking about a full-text search) in my
previous post, but it slipped my mind when I hit "send".

-- 
   To be evangelical is to spend every waking moment hovering around
   two emotional states: fear and rage. Evangelicals are seriously the
   angriest and most vicious bunch of self-pitying, constantly-moaning
   whinybutts I've ever encountered.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122997 — Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

On 11/13/2025 6:49 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 13.11.2025 13:36, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
>>> to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
>>> even when replying to a cross-posted article.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your
>> killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?
> 
> The problem is that pathological people seem to ignore and circumvent
> that by changing name, email, and subject to get through; most similar
> to what ads, prn, fraud, etc. do.
> 
>>
>> I have not done this (yet); my killfile kills only articles *by* olcott.
> 
> Same here.
> 
>> I still have to manually kill any responses to his posts.  It would, of
>> course, be nice if we could get people to stop responding to his junk, but
>> that'd be like expecting the tides to turn.
>>
>> But I think it (killing any article that contains the string) is the right
>> thing to do (*), and will do so when I get around to it.
>>
>> (*) I don't know (yet) if there is a more direct way to kill (in trn) any
>> article from a given user and plus all followups - in a single go.
>> Obviously, that would be the real/ideal solution to this problem.
> 
> Janis
> 

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

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

int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}

This code has been fully operational
for three years so I know what it does.

That no one else has been able to confirm
that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction has been
the issue that everyone has ignored or lied
about for three years.

If you want to rudely fail to give me the
five minute review that I have been asking
for for three years I will be a forever
poster to this group.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122996 — Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state)

On 11/13/2025 6:36 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <87a50qpp5n.fsf@example.invalid>,
> Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> I note that a substantial fraction of the articles recently posted
>> to comp.lang.c (and probably comp.lang.c++) are cross-posted to
>> comp.theory, and are about the Halting Problem.
>>
>> Some of these articles contain small fragments of C-like source code,
>> but I suggest that doesn't make them either topical or interesting
>> to most participants in the C and C++ newsgroups.
>>
>> I humbly suggest, yet again, that these discussions be restricted
>> to comp.theory, and that users try to edit the "Newsgroups:" header
>> even when replying to a cross-posted article.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better (and easier and more likely to work) to setup your
> killfile to kill any article (in C.L.C) that contains the string "olcott" ?
> 
> I have not done this (yet); my killfile kills only articles *by* olcott.  I
> still have to manually kill any responses to his posts.  It would, of
> course, be nice if we could get people to stop responding to his junk, but
> that'd be like expecting the tides to turn.
> 
> But I think it (killing any article that contains the string) is the right
> thing to do (*), and will do so when I get around to it.
> 
> (*) I don't know (yet) if there is a more direct way to kill (in trn) any
> article from a given user and plus all followups - in a single go.
> Obviously, that would be the real/ideal solution to this problem.
> 

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

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

int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}

This code has been fully operational
for three years so I know what it does.

That no one else has been able to confirm
that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction has been
the issue that everyone has ignored or lied
about for three years.

I am a forever poster to this group until
I get a correct reply to the above.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#123150

On 11/12/25 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 8:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>
>> If those two are in any way whatsoever different, the entire
>> castle you built in the sand is washed away.
>>
> 
> *This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*
> *This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*
> *This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*

We are waiting for you to see the actual truth through your lies.

> 
> int D()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> Everyone here rejects that the execution trace
> of 5 statements of D simulated by H according to
> the semantics of C is this:
> 
> (1)    H simulates D that calls H(D)
> (2) that simulates D that calls H(D)
> (3) that simulates D that calls H(D)
> (4) that simulates D that calls H(D)
> (5) that simulates D that calls H(D)
> 
> 

Because that isn't what C says.

If you define that H is a simulator, maybe (but then you just specified 
that it doesn't abort its simulation).

If you define that H is a decider that simulates, and might abort, then 
that is NOT the behavior specified.

Without a strict specification of what H does, the code is just 
underfined, and you claims just stupid lies.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web