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

Op 13.mrt.2025 om 14:41 schreef olcott:

On 3/13/2025 6:18 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <vqud4e$36e14$3@dont-email.me>,
Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> wrote:

Op 12.mrt.2025 om 16:31 schreef olcott:

[snip]
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.

>
In other words no HHH of the set of HHH/DDD pairs ever succeeds to
complete the simulation of a halting program. Failure to reach the end
of a halting program is not a great success. If all HHH in this set
fail, it would be better to change your mind and start working on
something more useful.

>
He seems to think that he's written a program that detects that
his thing hasn't 'reached its "return" instruction and
terminate[d] normally', given some number of steps, where that
number is ... the cardinality of the natural numbers.
>
I wonder if he knows that the set of natural numbers is
infintite, though I suspect he'd say something like, "but it's
countable!"  To which I'd surmise that he has no idea what that
means.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
Everyone here knows that when N steps of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH that DDD never reaches its own "return"
instruction and terminates normally thus never halts.

  Why would we be interested in your simulator that is not able to reach the end of the program described in its input when direct execution and world-class simulators are perfectly able to reach that end of exactly the same input?