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

On 5/16/2025 9:44 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

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*.
 

Unless there is also an interpreter also written in C.
Any competent C programmer would know that C programs
can be simulated by C interpreters. If they don't know
this then that are not competent.

Your stance on the Linz proof shouldn't be about C but about logic, and

This post was not about Linz.
If my reviewers can't even understand recursive
emulation (same idea as infinite recursion)
there is no change they will understand what
I say about Linz.
One of the smartest guys here thinks that
DDD will halt on its own if HHH just waits
long enough.
Mike is brilliant on everything else.

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.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer