Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 5/8/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/8/2025 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
[...]

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
If you are a competent C programmer then you
know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly each its own "return" instruction.

>
"cannot possibly each"?
>
I am a competent C programmer (and I don't believe you can make
the same claim).  I don't know what HHH is.  The name "HHH" tells
me nothing about what it's supposed to do.  Without knowing what
HHH is, I can't say much about your code (or is it pseudo-code?).
>

 For the purpose of this discussion HHH is exactly
what I said it is. It correctly simulates DDD.

So you retract your stipulations?

 We need not know anything else about HHH to
know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
possibly REACH its own "return" instruction.

Excpet that then you can't change HHH to make it the decider, as that changes the code of the program to be decided.
But then you have already admitted that you aren't looking at programs, and thus just lying about working on the actual halting problem or replicating the proof PROGRAM.

 

The return statement is harmless but unnecessary.
>
"void DDD()" should be "void DDD(void)" (unless you're using C23, but
we've established that your not).  Why did you choose to use empty
parentheses?  (If you answer nothing else, please answer that.)
>

 I am using Microsoft Visual Studio 2017.
It compiled cleanly.