Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)

On 4/3/2025 11:58 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 04/04/2025 05:41, olcott wrote:

On 4/3/2025 11:31 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 04/04/2025 05:08, olcott wrote:

On 4/3/2025 9:58 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

[Post in comp.lang.c, read in comp.lang.c]
>
On 04/04/2025 03:45, olcott wrote:

On 4/3/2025 9:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

[Post in comp.lang.c, read in comp.lang.c]
>
On 04/04/2025 02:27, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
Do you really think that anyone knowing the C
programming language is too stupid to see that
DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly return?

>
Anyone knowing the C language will know on seeing your code that

>
I am correct

>
Oh, I see. Yes, of course you are. Well done.
>
"DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly return".
>
Then HHH cannot possibly simulate DDD.
>

everything else is off-topic for this post.

>
And HHH() is off-topic for this newsgroup. You started the thread in comp.lang.c, so to make it topical you'd have to rewrite HHH() in C instead of peppering your code with assembly language calls.
>

>
The halting problem in C would seem to be relevant to C groups

>
The C code would be topical, yes. [Note that comp.lang.c++ is not a C group. It's a C++ group.] But the assembly language calls are not topical here.
>

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}
>
DD simulated by HHH gets stuck on its first line.

>
Then HHH is failing to correctly analyse DD for determining whether it halts, and therefore it is failing to address the Halting Problem.
>
Non-working simulations are a dime a dozen, and they prove nothing.
>

>
Fully operating code.

 I've seen it. It's C syntax, but it's basically assembly language, not C.
 But let's imagine it's in C, imagine you're right, and imagine it's fully working. If it's fully working, it must correctly analyse DD's behaviour, so it can't get stuck. If it does get stuck (as you claim) it can't correctly analyse DD's behaviour so it can't be fully working (as you claim).
 

*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
It is always correct for any simulating termination
analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input that
would otherwise prevent its own termination. The
only rebuttal to this is rejecting the notion that
deciders must always halt.

Either claim (it works, it doesn't work) could in principle be true, but not both. So either you're wrong or you're wrong, but /how/ you're wrong depends on which claim you decide to stand behind.
 But wait!
  >>>>> I am correct
 Oh, I see. Yes, of course you are. Well done. Good lad.
 

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