Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by a simple example in C

On 17/05/2025 03:24, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 8:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 17/05/2025 00:59, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 10:48 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 16/05/2025 16:10, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

 Only damned liars would remove this key context.

Snipping material to which one is not replying is basic good manners. I do not expect you to understand the concept.

Anyone that knows C can tell that when HHH does simulate
DDD correctly that it keeps getting deeper in recursive
simulation until aborted or OOM error.

>
Anyone who knows C knows that there isn't much HHH can do with the pointer value it's given. It can call DDD:
>
(*p)();
>

>
Sure when you make sure to totally ignore crucial
words

>
The crucial words - *so* crucial that you keep on repeating them - are 'Anyone who knows C'.
>
You don't.
>

then by using the strawman error on these dishonestly
changed words they are easy to rebut.

>
I didn't change your words; I just rebutted them.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>
"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion."
>
When you said "Anyone who knows C" (as you have said very often), you yourself opened the discussion.
>
If you don't want people to attack your woeful understanding if the language, don't make the claim that you know the language.
>

On the other hand when honest C programmers see
those words they will think of something like a C
interpreter written in C is doing the simulation.

>
If you are claiming to have written a C interpreter, that's a huge claim without any evidence whatsoever to support it.
>

 When you dishonestly remove the context that you are
replying to fools might think that your rebuttal has merit.

The context you claim was 'dishonestly' removed is:
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
with which we are all too, too familiar.
The context merely shows that the only information HHH receives is a pointer to a function.
That's not enough for HHH to be able to do what you claim for it *within the rules of C*.
Your stance on the Linz proof shouldn't be about C but about logic, and to attack your lack of knowledge of the language *should* be a strawman, and would be, if you didn't continually make incorrect claims about the language (often in the form of "anyone who knows C can tell...").
As long as you continue to make incorrect claims about the language, I reserve the right to rebut them.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within