Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106835
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt |
| Date | 2024-06-09 19:02 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <v45fq4$3sv37$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <v44dle$3i5jo$2@dont-email.me> <v44jvn$3jnc8$3@dont-email.me> <v44qin$3g17f$5@i2pn2.org> <v44ru8$3m841$3@dont-email.me> <v44usm$3g17f$6@i2pn2.org> |
On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01 void HHH(ptr
>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 P(I);
>>>> 04 return;
>>>> 05 }
>>>> 06 07 void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>> 08 {
>>>> 09 HHH(x, x);
>>>> 10 return;
>>>> 11 }
>>>> 12 13 int main()
>>>> 14 {
>>>> 15 HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>> 16 }
>>>> 17
>>>
>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return statement
>>>> thus never halt.
>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>
>> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
>> Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite recursion is
>> before proceeding.
> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you.
OK then we are done talking.
> You instead could explain how you
> can call a simulation that differs from the direct execution "correct".
> Or why H and HH are different.
>
I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never
result in any mutual agreement.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:19 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:07 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 17:59 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:23 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 19:13 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:02 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:26 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:41 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:56 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:10 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:36 -0400
D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 23:09 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:33 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 08:40 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:27 -0500
csiph-web