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

On 3/13/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 When HHH correctly emulates N steps of the
above DDD it cannot possibly reach its own
"return" instruction and terminate normally.
 

Irrelevant, as that's not what the halting problem is about.

On 3/13/2025 8:55 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/13/2025 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:

I created DDD because
some of my reviewers are not technically competent
enough to see that line 2 of DD is unreachable code
when N steps of DD are correctly simulated by HHH.
>

>
But it *is* reachable code when DD is executed directly,

 Because the directly executed code like DDD correctly
emulated by HHH1
DOES NOT HAVE THE PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE OF
CALLING ITS OWN EMULATOR YOU NITWIT.
 It is like you really really believe that sum(2,3) == 7
even though the sum of 2 + 3 == 5.
 

We don't care about the instance of DDD being simulated by a particular simulator.  We're interested in the hypothetical case where DDD is executed directly, which is what a solution to the halting problem is stipulated to report:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly