On 10/17/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:Of course you can. There are Turing machine simulators on the Web,On 2025-10-16 13:27:15 +0000, olcott said:It makes my point 100% concrete and empirically testable.
On 10/16/2025 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:That it is C code is not essential to its purpose.On 2025-10-15 15:10:47 +0000, olcott said:It is just that the C code is fully operational
On 10/15/2025 9:50 AM, tTh wrote:There is nothing language specific in the halting problem.On 10/15/25 14:32, olcott wrote:I just needed a couple of cross posts.
Here is that full proof.Can you take those insanity out of comp.lang.c ?
https://chatgpt.com/share/68eef2df-0f10-8011-8e92-264651cc518c
Here is how it is related to C/C++
code that succinctly makes my point.
One can't do that with the abstractions of Turing machines.
and making one's own is much easier than making one's own C
simulator.
You have not succeeded in presenting your point fully with C.
Instead you have needed to discuss the machine code translation
of the C code. The core part of your "deciders" is a machine
code simulator, not a C code simulator. When you have presented
execution traces you have presented machine code traces, not
C traces.
Machine codes and machine code traces are much longer than C codes
and C code traces. Therefore they are harder to present, harder to
read, harder to discuss, and far less convincing.
Turing machine codes and Turing machine traces are also longer
and therefore harder to use than C codes and C code traces.
However, Turing machines are much simpler than C code and x86
machine code, so proofs about Turing machines are much simpler
than proofs about C code or x86 machine code. And proofs are
what counts in computation theory.
--
Mikko
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.