Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF

On 2/25/2025 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 9:45 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 8:52 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/25/2025 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 12:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/25/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no
proof or pointer to proof below.
>

>
>
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);
}
>
The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
own "return" instruction.
>
That this may be beyond your technical skill level.
is less than no rebuttal at all.
>
Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.
>

>
int no_numbers_greater_than_10();
>
int F(uintptr_t p);
>
int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
{
   return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
}
>
int main()
{
   F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
   return 0;
}
>
>
The above does specify that no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F
cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
own "return" instruction.
>
That this may be beyond your technical skill level
is less than no rebuttal at all.

>
Finally you made something that was not wrong in several different ways.
So what is your point?
>

>
Yes.
>

>
Good.  So now looking again at the code, this time showing the implementation of F:
>
int no_numbers_greater_than_10();
>
int F(uintptr_t p)
{
   uintptr_t ptr = (uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10;
   uintptr_t i = p ^ ptr;i

>
I am never going to attempt to deal with this convoluted bullshit.

>
It's XORing the input value with the address of no_numbers_greater_than_10.  It allows F to both accept the address of no_numbers_greater_than_10 as a parameter as well an arbitrary number.
>

>
I simply cast all addresses to 32 bit unsigned int,
thus no reason for the xor nonsense. I changed this
to function pointers because some nit picky reviewers
were freaking out.
>
I may not have  very much time left, lets get to the freaking point.
>

>
The point is, no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F does not halt,

 I  can't tell WTF the new screwy one does and don't
have time to deal with it. The radiation therapy
just made me shit my pants.

As before, it tests every natural number to see if it's greater than 10.   If it finds one, it halts and returns 0.  If it can't find one, it gets stuck in infinite recursion and does not halt.
Since you agreed that no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F does not halt, then we can conclude that there are no natural numbers greater than 10.
Agreed?

 

as you have agreed, and F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) correctly reports that.  And because no_numbers_greater_than_10 does not halt, we can conclude that there are no natural numbers greater than 10.
>
Agreed?
>