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

Groups > comp.theory > #106846

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

From Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt
Date 2024-06-09 21:10 -0400
Organization i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID <v45jqr$3h642$3@i2pn2.org> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <v45fq4$3sv37$1@dont-email.me> <v45h1l$3h642$1@i2pn2.org> <v45h88$3tjc2$1@dont-email.me> <v45i42$3h641$2@i2pn2.org> <v45ive$3tpr9$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/9/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

I only call you after you repeat the same basic lie several times after 
being corrected.

That is a valid definition of a Liar, and you fit.

That will NOT send me to Hell, but your habitual disregard for the truth 
shows that it may well be your destination.

Of course, most people going there think they are not, because they 
never bothered to see what the real judgement was going to be on.

Your statement make it clear that you fall into that class.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous 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