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

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.
People won't normally agree to something they don't fully understand, and even less if they think it is wrong.
To say people need to trust your meaning is a joke, as you have proven that you words is worthless, and you knowledge of what you talk about even less.
If your proof requires people to accept something with baddly defined terms only to have those term clarified later, either you can move that defintion up earler, or if that only works because you have gotten them to accept the poorly defined version, that shows that it was based on a circular definition, and thus doesn't actually meet even your definition of truth.
Since you can only prove things by connecting them to accepted truths, you start with the things that are near to the accepted truths and show their connections, and then move along.
If your proof has a loop, then it isn't actually a proof, but a unsound circular argument.