Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/8/25 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/8/2025 12:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 08/05/2025 06:12, olcott wrote:

It is like you never heard of infinite recursion.

>
I'm sure he has.
>
On a computer, there's no such thing.
>
Oh, we can /describe/ such a thing:
>
foo(){foo();}
>
or, if you prefer:
>
void bar(void);foo(){bar();}bar(){foo();}
>
but it never gets more than a yard off the starting line before it breaks. On systems where function calls are facilitated by pushing return addresses onto a stack, the stack rapidly runs out of space, and a good OS will trip it up before Bad Things can happen.
>
If you think you have "an essentially infinite recursion relationship" you're only fooling yourself, nobody else.
>

 We are testing the basic elements of key algorithms
in the concrete model of computation of the x86 language,
we have no need to look at memory requirements. The C
functions are proxies for Turing Machines.

No, they are not, as they don't have the required properties.
In particular, to be a proxy for Turing Machines, they should be "pure functions" and "complete". Since your D refers to something that isn't part of itself or its input, (that is your H) it isn't a proper proxie.

 I hate tedious details. I specific the gist of ideas
so that the rest can be easily inferred.
>

And that is why you don't find truth. You need to work with a valid gist of the ideas.
All you are doing is trying to justify you lies.