Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 5/8/25 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/8/2025 8:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/8/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/8/2025 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
[...]

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
If you are a competent C programmer then you
know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly each its own "return" instruction.

>
"cannot possibly each"?
>
I am a competent C programmer (and I don't believe you can make
the same claim).  I don't know what HHH is.  The name "HHH" tells
me nothing about what it's supposed to do.  Without knowing what
HHH is, I can't say much about your code (or is it pseudo-code?).
>

>
For the purpose of this discussion HHH is exactly
what I said it is. It correctly simulates DDD.

>
So you retract your stipulations?
>

>
We need not know anything else about HHH to
know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly REACH its own "return" instruction.

>
Excpet that then you can't change HHH to make it the decider, as that changes the code of the program to be decided.
>

 *We can't get to that step until after this step is complete*
So you agree with my above paragraph:
 We need not know anything else about HHH to
know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly REACH its own "return" instruction.
 

Excpet that as pointed out, your DDD is impossible to correctly simulate, as it doesn't include the code for the HHH that it calls, and thus any simulator that tries to simulate it finds undefined behavior, as it needs to access that which it isn't allowed to access and meet the requriment to be a pure funciton.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand the basic terms you are using.
If fact, you have admitted to enough details of what you are doing to totally disquiarlify all your work, as you admit that you consider neither HHH or DD to be programs, just C functions, which are not categories that the field talks about.
Sorry, you are just proving you are too stupid to understand the elementary basics of the field you claim to be making great discoveries in, when in fact you prove that you are just lying about everything.