Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid Mistake

On 12/03/2025 02:03, olcott wrote:

On 3/11/2025 8:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/03/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:

DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
own "return" instruction and terminates normally
in any finite or infinite number of correctly
simulated steps.

>
If it correctly simulates infinitely many steps, it doesn't terminate. Look up "infinite".
>

 *It was dishonest of you to remove this context*

No, it wasn't.

On 3/11/2025 12:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > (Even though it demonstrably DOES halt if not
 > aborted and simulated further.
 That statement is stupidly false.
 

But your task is to decide for /any/ program, not just DDD.

 No you have this WRONG.

No, you do. It's stipulated.

 My WHOLE effort has been to correctly determine the
halt status of the conventional halting problem proof's
"impossible" input.

Then you're not addressing the conventional halting problem. You're addressing an infinitesimally small non-problem. The conventional halting problem requires a universal decision-maker that /works/ universally in finite time. Yours clearly doesn't.

 This by itself is better than anyone else has ever done
with this proof since it was first presented 89 years ago.

Well, no, it isn't. But why not just stipulate that you're a genius? Nobody can argue then, right? Why not stipulate yourself a Fields Medal while you're at it?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within