Sujet : Re: DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.lang.c++Date : 28. Jun 2025, 19:16:22
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <103pbhm$104gh$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/28/2025 12:43 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/28/2025 1:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/28/2025 12:13 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/28/2025 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/28/2025 10:52 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/28/2025 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/28/2025 10:39 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/28/2025 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/28/2025 10:21 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/28/2025 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/28/2025 10:14 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/28/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 14:36 -0500, olcott wrote:
I am only here for the validation of the behavior
of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.
>
The definition of HHH is missing.
>
The definition is specified in this part that you
dishonestly erased:
>
On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
> and returns 0.
>
>
The dishonest one here is YOU, as it was not wij who snipped the below in his reply but YOU:
>
>
I stop at the first counter-factual mistake so I stop here.
Everything else is ignored.
>
>
In other words, you INTENTIONALLY don't read things that prove you wrong.
>
>
On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:
>
> The definition of HHH is missing.
>
On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
> and returns 0.
>
>
It is a verified fact that the definition of HHH was
provided thus the claim that it was not provided is
counter factual.
>
>
No, you didn't give a definition of HHH, just gave a vauge incomplete description of what you think it does.
>
>
It completely defines the generic notion of a simulating
termination analyzer and
>
It specifies every detail about HHH that is required
to correctly determine whether or not DDD correctly
simulated by HHH can possibly reach its own simulated
"return" statement final halt state.
>
>
But why would you say that when you've admitted on the record (see below) that DDD is not in fact correctly simulated by HHH?
>
>
*I am not going to tolerate any misdirection to any other points*
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
The only point relevant to this forum is that DDD correctly
simulated by HHH
>
Is something that you have admitted on the record doesn't happen:
>
>
*This is the only point that I will address*
*Any attempt at changing the subject will*
*be construed as dishonest*
>
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
DDD();
}
>
Termination Analyzer HHH
False, as it doesn't meet the requirements to be one:
My rebuttal to your change of subject is not appropriate
for this group.
Changes of subject in this group *WILL NOT BE TOLERATED*
because that has always proved to be a gaslighting tactic.
Whenever I make any irrefutable point the fake rebuttal
always includes a change of subject.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory
Re: DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory