Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

On 2/11/2025 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-10 11:58:31 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/10/2025 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-09 15:24:53 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/9/2025 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-08 14:55:09 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/8/2025 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-07 23:13:04 +0000, olcott said:
>

Experts in the C programming language will know that DD
correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
"if" statement.

>
Wrong, they understand that nothing below exludes the possibility that
HHH is a program that can correctly simulate DD to its "if" statement.

>
Show the execution trace of that.

>
Your request does not make sense. Non-existence of a exclusion does not
have an execution trace.
>

The code of HHH might exlude that but that is not sohwn below.
>

The finite string DD specifies non-terminating recursive
simulation to simulating termination analyzer HHH.

>
No, it does not. DD as quoted below pecifies nothing about the behaviour
of HHH, only its argument types and return type.
>

>
 >>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); // line 3 of DD
Requires HHH to simulate itself simulating DD recursively.

>
No, it does not. I only requires that the execution of HHH with a function
pointer to DD must be started. OP does not show what happens next.

>
Within the context that HHH <is> a simulating termination
analyzer line 3 of DD proves that DD cannot possibly reach
its own "if" statement.

>
That is not the context of OP.
>

>
That you did not bother to look at my paper

>
That is again a false claim about a person.
>

does not entail that the correct full context has not been provided.

>
Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that article
before or when HHH

 That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been talking about in this forum for several years.

 

was introduced to the discussion and the fact
that the pointer to the article at the end of the discussion is not
linked to any specific point do entail exacltly that.
>

The
context has always been this paper for several years.

>
Irrelevant to OP.
>