Re: olcott seems to be willfully ignorant

Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 23:14:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/2/2024 11:05 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:03:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:

Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?

What semantics proves that HHH doesn’t halt? Can you show the C code
where it aborts?

Yes but I won't.

That makes a proof a bit tricky.

DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD)
to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.

Aborted by HHH, so that it can return.

Aborted meaning immediately stops running.

So that HHH can return.

At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD correctly
emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.

Except for the outer call to HHH from main.

HHH stops running after aborting its input.

Does that mean it returns or does it call exit()?

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.