Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF

On 2/25/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 9:45 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 8:52 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/25/2025 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 12:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/25/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no
proof or pointer to proof below.
>

>
>
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);
}
>
The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
own "return" instruction.
>
That this may be beyond your technical skill level.
is less than no rebuttal at all.
>
Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.
>

>
int no_numbers_greater_than_10();
>
int F(uintptr_t p);
>
int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
{
   return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
}
>
int main()
{
   F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
   return 0;
}
>
>
The above does specify that no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F
cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
own "return" instruction.
>
That this may be beyond your technical skill level
is less than no rebuttal at all.

>
Finally you made something that was not wrong in several different ways.
So what is your point?
>

>
Yes.
>

>
Good.  So now looking again at the code, this time showing the implementation of F:
>
int no_numbers_greater_than_10();
>
int F(uintptr_t p)
{
   uintptr_t ptr = (uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10;
   uintptr_t i = p ^ ptr;i

>
I am never going to attempt to deal with this convoluted bullshit.

>
It's XORing the input value with the address of no_numbers_greater_than_10.  It allows F to both accept the address of no_numbers_greater_than_10 as a parameter as well an arbitrary number.
>

>
I simply cast all addresses to 32 bit unsigned int,
thus no reason for the xor nonsense. I changed this
to function pointers because some nit picky reviewers
were freaking out.
>
I may not have  very much time left, lets get to the freaking point.
>

 The point is, no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F does not halt,

I  can't tell WTF the new screwy one does and don't
have time to deal with it. The radiation therapy
just made me shit my pants.

as you have agreed, and F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) correctly reports that.  And because no_numbers_greater_than_10 does not halt, we can conclude that there are no natural numbers greater than 10.
 Agreed?
 

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