Re: Is Richard a Liar? No!

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/14/2024 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.mei.2024 om 19:52 schreef olcott:

On 5/14/2024 12:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

[ .... ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

[ .... ]

But nobody here knows the proof for your assertion above, that it is
a verified fact that it cannot reach past line 03. So, we would like
to see that proof. Just the claim that it has been proven is not enough.

The "nobody here" you are referring to must be clueless
about the semantics of the C programming language.

Are you honest? Please, give the proof, instead of keeping away from it.

I have been an expert C/C++ programmer for decades.

I see evidence to the contrary.  You may have dabbled in C twenty years
ago, or so, but if you were an expert C/C++ programmer, you would not
have written those twelve lines so carelessly that they don't even
compile.  Also, were you an expert, you could easily fix the mistakes and
turn those twelve lines into valid C.  I've challenged you to do this
at least once over the past few days, yet you haven't done so.  It would
appear your C skills are not up to the job.

If you knew C will enough yourself you would comprehend
that my claim about:

Any H/D pair matching the above template where
D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls
cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
This is a simple software engineering verified fact.

I know C very well indeed, and I've an idea where you're coming from.
But to assert that about a corrected version of your code needs reasoning
from you; it needs a proof.  To assert it about the mess that the current
code is is just senseless, and needs no reply.

Like others here, I suspect you don't understand the concept of a proof,
much less do you have the ability to construct one.  You can refute such
ideas simply by supplying the said proof.  Then we can put your proof and
Richard's counter example head to head against eachother, and see which
is correct.

My grandfather was a diagnostician and pathologist
said: "You can't argue with ignorance".

Not a sensible thing for you to draw attention to.

[ .... ]

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).