Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>

Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
article before or when HHH

>
That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
talking about in this forum for several years.

>
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that
paper.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
contains a false claim.

>
It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
possibly show otherwise.

>
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.

>
When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false I
will point out the error.

>
Step 1: Find people who know C.
Step 2: Show them DD of OP and ask.
>

This is the only topic that I will discuss and any

>
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  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.

 
That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows that HHH
does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
 

When we know that DD is simulated by HHH we know that HHH cannot
possibly return to this DD as long as we have at least a little
competence in the C language.