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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 10. Jun 2024, 02:10:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v45jqr$3h642$3@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
9 Jun 24 * Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt27olcott
9 Jun 24 `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt26olcott
9 Jun 24  `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt25joes
9 Jun 24   `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt24olcott
9 Jun 24    `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt23joes
10 Jun 24     `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt22olcott
10 Jun 24      +* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt19Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i`* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt18olcott
10 Jun 24      i `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt17Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i  `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt16olcott
10 Jun 24      i   `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt15Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i    `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt14olcott
10 Jun 24      i     `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt13Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i      `* D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case12olcott
10 Jun 24      i       +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case7Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case6olcott
10 Jun 24      i       i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case5Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case4olcott
10 Jun 24      i       i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case3Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case2olcott
10 Jun 24      i       i     `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case4Alan Mackenzie
10 Jun 24      i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years3olcott
10 Jun 24      i         +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years1joes
12 Jun 24      i         `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt2joes
10 Jun 24       `- Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal