Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid Mistake and Liars

On 3/12/2025 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/12/25 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/11/2025 9:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/03/2025 02:06, olcott wrote:

On 3/11/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/11/2025 9:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 12/03/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:

DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
own "return" instruction and terminates normally
in any finite or infinite number of correctly
simulated steps.

>
If it correctly simulates infinitely many steps, it doesn't terminate. Look up "infinite".
>
But your task is to decide for /any/ program, not just DDD. That, as you are so fond of saying, is 'stipulated', and you can't get out of it. The whole point of the Entscheidungsproblem is its universality. Ignore that, and you have nothing.
>

>
>
Given that his code has HHH(DD) returning 0,

>
THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE
WORDS WILL BE TAKEN FOR A LIAR

>
>
"THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE WORDS WILL BE TAKEN FOR A LIAR"?
>
Is that all you've got? Nothing on your function's inability to correctly decide on whether arbitrary input programs terminate, which is a ***stipulated*** requirement for the problem.
>
Without that, all you have is loud.
>

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
own "return" instruction and terminates normally
in any finite or infinite number of correctly
simulated steps.

>
Look up "infinite". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
>

>
When N steps of DDD are correctly emulated by every element
of the set of C functions named HHH that do x86 emulation and
>
N is each element of the set of natural numbers
>
then no DDD of the set of HHH/DDD pairs ever reaches its
"return" instruction and terminates normally.
>

 WRONG, because "DDD reaching its "return" instruction" isn't defined by the HHH that emulates it,

Thus the Liar Paradox is TRUE because it is ~TRUE
Instances of pathological self-reference
CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED !!!
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer