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

On 2/16/25 7:51 AM, olcott wrote:

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 are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH and not
trying to get away with changing the subject to some other DD
somewhere else then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C
programming knows that no instance of DD shown above simulated
by any corresponding instance of HHH can possibly terminate normally.
 

And the above DD simulated by HHH is shown to be an INCORRECT simulation, and thus that you whole arguement is based on STRAWMEN.
Since the Halting Problem makes ZERO references to a simulation, any attempt to bring in a simulation is just a strawman until it can be proven equivalent.
Thus, you have been proven to be nothing but a LIAR that has no knowledge about what you are talking about.