Re: Olcott still seems too dishonest to admit that his HHH doesn't correctly emulate DDD

On 8/5/24 8:41 AM, olcott wrote:

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.
 

Nope, only those that think they are experts but don't actually know what they are talking about.
If HHH(DDD) return 0, it returns 0 to the PROGRAM DDD that it is emulating a copy of, and thus that DDD will halt.
The PARTIAL emulaition of DDD that HHH does is NOT a "correct emulation" and thus your premise is just inocrrect.
Note, if *THE* HHH (and there can only be one at a time in a given problem) NEVER aborts, (and thus doesn't answer, and thus is not a decider) then the DDD built on it will not reach the return instruction, but that has clearly not be the only and only HHH that you are talking about, and thus your claim is just a LIE.