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

Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:40 schreef olcott:

On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that paper.
>
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line contains
a false claim.

>
It is a truism and not one person on the face of the
Earth can possibly show otherwise.

>
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.

>
When you try to show the steps attempting to show that
it is false I will point out the error.

>
Step 1: Find people who know C.
Step 2: Show them DD of OP and ask.
>

This is the only topic that I will discuss and any

 typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}
 DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.

Indeed. The simulation by HHH fails to reach the end of the halting DD.
This shows that it is a bad idea to use a simulator to decide about halting/non-halting behaviour.