Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/9/25 8:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 09/06/2025 21:39, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>
On 09/06/2025 20:54, dbush wrote:

If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not working on the halting problem, people would stop bothering
you.

Well, I doubt if he'll ever do that, but we could stop bothering him anyway. You'd be amazed at how much time you save. :-)
>

>
Dude!!  THINK what you're suggesting!   What about all the innocent children who might read his posts and come away with the wrong idea about halting?  And if someone doesn't reply pointing out PO's numerous mistakes, that would mean that PO IS RIGHT!  On the Internet, the person who posts last in an argument WINS THAT ARGUMENT, regardless of what that person was actualy saying - that's "usenet rulez"...  You'ld be AGREEING WITH PO, saying that he REALLY IS A GENIUS and everybody else here is a lying idiot!!
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
Every first year computer science student that knows C
can confirm that DDD correctly simulated by HHH would
never stop running unless aborted.
>

 No, I first year computer science student would know that given the above as the full definition of the input means that a correct simulation of the above program is a linker error of undefined symbol HHH.