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

On 2/15/25 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows that
HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
>

 When we know that DD is simulated by HHH we know that
HHH cannot possibly return to this DD as long as we
have at least a little competence in the C language.
  

But the problem is that is bad knowledge, ad HHH does not CORRECTLY simulate its input, and thus to presume it does is an error.
Your logic is just built on LIES.