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

Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:25:06 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/27/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:49 schreef olcott:

On 2/26/2025 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.feb.2025 om 15:45 schreef olcott:

On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

 does not change it into non- halting. It is childish to claim
 that when you close your eyes, things do not happen.

You can't even keep track of what we are talking about.

Change of subject to avoid a honest discussion.
It is childish to claim that things do not happen when you close your
eyes.

When I say that DD emulated by HHH cannot terminate normally it is
flat out dishonest to say that I am wrong based on another different
DD that has different behavior.

That claim is just flat out dishonest, and proves you don't understand
the meaning of the words you are using.

DD emulated by HHH explicitly excludes directly executed DD that has a
different execution trace.

Hahaha no. HHH is *required* to simulate exactly DD and nothing else.
I can't fathom how you can think that a simulator can just claim
itself to be correct *instead of the real thing*. Look, I have another
simulator: it always return the same value! Where do you draw the line?

It has always been ridiculously stupid for anyone to expect HHH to
report on any behavior besides the behavior that its finite string input
specifies.

Yeah, exactly. Why does HHH not produce the execution trace of DD?

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.