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

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