Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction
De : NoOne (at) *nospam* NoWhere.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 05. Aug 2024, 13:41:13
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <jfWdnRzxHen0VS37nZ2dnZfqlJwAAAAA@giganews.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/5/2024 6:53 AM, wij wrote:
On Mon, 2024-08-05 at 07:40 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/4/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/4/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly
emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction.
>
No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely
without aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that
DDD will be non-halting.
>
>
See there?
>
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction and every
C expert knows this.
>
But that only apply to the PROGRAM DDD built from an HHH that never
aborts.
>
>
No it does not and every C expert knows that it does not.
>
>
Really> You have a source for that?
>
Or is this just another of your "Digonalization" logic claims that you
retracted.
>
Claims that "every x knows" are just a fallacy, and you should know it,
but are, of course, just to dumb to understand.
>
Here the problem is you just lie about what "Correctly Emulated" means
for determining the behavior of a program.
>
Sorry, you are just proving you are a stupid pathetic ignorant
pathological lying idiot with a reckless disregrad for the truth because
you beleive your own lies to the point that you don't even look at the
facts.
 Don't know why I am glad to see someone finally to find out olcott is a
"pathological liar and idiot".
 Save all your time. olcott don't understand the basic "if" logic, that says
everything to me. He don't know anything logic.
 
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
Every expert in the C programming language knows that
DDD correctly simulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "return" instruction halt state.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
  Genius hits a target no one else can see."
  Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Aug 24 * Defining a correct halt decider67olcott
4 Aug 24 +* Re: Defining a correct halt decider45Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i`* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider44olcott
4 Aug 24 i `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider43Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i  `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider42olcott
4 Aug 24 i   +* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider20Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i   i`* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider19olcott
4 Aug 24 i   i `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider18Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i   i  `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider17olcott
5 Aug 24 i   i   `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider16Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i   i    `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider15olcott
5 Aug 24 i   i     `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider14Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i   i      `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider13olcott
5 Aug 24 i   i       `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider12Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i   i        `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider11olcott
5 Aug 24 i   i         `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider10Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i   i          `* You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction9olcott
5 Aug 24 i   i           `* Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction8Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i   i            `* Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction7olcott
5 Aug 24 i   i             `* Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction6Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i   i              `* Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction5olcott
5 Aug 24 i   i               `* Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction4Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i   i                `* Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction3wij
5 Aug 24 i   i                 `* Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction2olcott
6 Aug 24 i   i                  `- Re: Olcott still seems too dishonest to admit that his HHH doesn't correctly emulate DDD1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i   `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider21Mikko
7 Aug 24 i    `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider20olcott
8 Aug 24 i     +- Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider (Which isn't a valid criteria for a decider)1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i     `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider18Mikko
8 Aug 24 i      `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider17olcott
8 Aug 24 i       +* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider4Python
8 Aug 24 i       i`* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider3olcott
9 Aug 24 i       i +- Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider1Richard Damon
9 Aug 24 i       i `- Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider1Python
9 Aug 24 i       +- Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider1Richard Damon
9 Aug 24 i       `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider11Mikko
9 Aug 24 i        `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider10olcott
10 Aug 24 i         +- Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider1Richard Damon
10 Aug 24 i         `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider8Mikko
10 Aug 24 i          `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider7olcott
10 Aug 24 i           +* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider3Richard Damon
10 Aug 24 i           i`* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider2olcott
10 Aug 24 i           i `- Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider1Richard Damon
11 Aug 24 i           `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider3Mikko
11 Aug 24 i            `* Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider2olcott
11 Aug 24 i             `- Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider1Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 `* Re: Defining a correct halt decider21Mikko
5 Aug 24  `* I call it a halting decidability decider20olcott
5 Aug 24   +* Re: I call it a halting decidability decider14Python
5 Aug 24   i`* Re: I call it a halting decidability decider13olcott
6 Aug 24   i +* Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider.5Richard Damon
6 Aug 24   i i`* Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider.4olcott
6 Aug 24   i i `* Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider.3Richard Damon
6 Aug 24   i i  `* Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider.2olcott
6 Aug 24   i i   `- Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider.1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24   i `* Re: I call it a halting decidability decider7Mikko
7 Aug 24   i  `* HHH decides a non-trivial semantic property of its input6olcott
8 Aug 24   i   +- Re: HHH decides a trivial semantic non-property of its input1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24   i   +* Re: HHH decides a non-trivial semantic property of its input3Mikko
8 Aug 24   i   i`* Re: HHH decides a non-trivial semantic property of its input2olcott
9 Aug 24   i   i `- Re: HHH decides a non-trivial semantic property of its input1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24   i   `- Re: HHH decides a trivial non-semantic non-property of its input1Richard Damon
6 Aug 24   +- Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus doesn't say anything about the halting problem1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24   `* Re: I call it a halting decidability decider4Mikko
7 Aug 24    `* Re: I call it a halting decidability decider3olcott
8 Aug 24     +- Re: I call it a halting decidability decider1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24     `- Re: I call it a halting decidability decider1Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal