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


Groups > comp.theory > #106844

Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt

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 19:56 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <v45ive$3tpr9$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (4 earlier) <v44usm$3g17f$6@i2pn2.org> <v45fq4$3sv37$1@dont-email.me> <v45h1l$3h642$1@i2pn2.org> <v45h88$3tjc2$1@dont-email.me> <v45i42$3h641$2@i2pn2.org>

Show all headers | View raw


On 6/9/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect logic, so you 
>>> are threatening to take your ball and go home.,
>>>
>>
>> We must go through the steps one-at-a-time and have mutual agreement
>> on each step to eliminate miscommunication intentional or otherwise.
>>
> 
> So, when someone questions what you mean by something, you need to 
> clearify the meaning of it.
> 

When someone "questions what you mean by something"
by calling me a liar they may go to actual Hell.

-- 
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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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