Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows

On 2025-03-11 17:07:38 +0000, olcott said:

On 3/11/2025 8:46 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 11/03/2025 13:31, olcott wrote:

On 3/11/2025 5:28 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-10 23:41:13 +0000, olcott said:
 

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   return;
}
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 That when HHH correctly emulates N steps of the
above functions that none of these functions can
possibly reach their own "return" instruction
and terminate normally.

 Every competent programmer knows that the information given is
insufficient to determine whether HHH emulates at all, and whether
it emulates correctly if it does.
 

Since HHH does see that same pattern that competent
C programmers see it correctly aborts its emulation
and rejects these inputs as non terminating.

 Whether HHH does see those patterns cannot be inferred from the information
given. Only about DDD one can see that it halts if HHH returns. In addition,
the given information does not tell whether HHH can see patterns that are
not there.
 How many competent programmers you have asked?

 Two C programmers with masters degrees in computer science
agree that DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own "return" instruction and terminate normally.

 Bring 'em on. Perhaps /they/ have the source to HHH, because without it you don't have anything. (And btw whatever it is you claim to have is far from clear, because all I've seen so far is an attempt to express the Halting Problem in C and pseuodocode, where the pseudocode reads: HHH(){ magic happens }

 You still sound like Richard Damon whom is unable to
understand that semantic tautologies are irrefutable.

That a false claim about one person is similar to a false claim about
another is not suffecent ro conclude or even sustpect that they are
the same. A better measure is how meny indignificant typos each makes.

When N steps of the above the above functions are
correctly emulated by HHH
(this is all that you need to know able HHH) then
none of them reach their "return" instruction and
terminate normally.
 HHH can and does emulate itself emulating DDD and DD.

Not completely. Not to the point where the emulated HHH returns.
--
Mikko