Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid Mistake or Liars

On 3/13/2025 2:20 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.mrt.2025 om 14:41 schreef olcott:

On 3/13/2025 6:18 AM, Dan Cross wrote:

In article <vqud4e$36e14$3@dont-email.me>,
Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> wrote:

Op 12.mrt.2025 om 16:31 schreef olcott:

[snip]
When N steps of DDD are correctly emulated by every element
of the set of C functions named HHH that do x86 emulation and
>
N is each element of the set of natural numbers
>
then no DDD of the set of HHH/DDD pairs ever reaches its
"return" instruction and terminates normally.

>
In other words no HHH of the set of HHH/DDD pairs ever succeeds to
complete the simulation of a halting program. Failure to reach the end
of a halting program is not a great success. If all HHH in this set
fail, it would be better to change your mind and start working on
something more useful.

>
He seems to think that he's written a program that detects that
his thing hasn't 'reached its "return" instruction and
terminate[d] normally', given some number of steps, where that
number is ... the cardinality of the natural numbers.
>
I wonder if he knows that the set of natural numbers is
infintite, though I suspect he'd say something like, "but it's
countable!"  To which I'd surmise that he has no idea what that
means.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
Everyone here knows that when N steps of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH that DDD never reaches its own "return"
instruction and terminates normally thus never halts.

>
>
Why would we be interested in your simulator that is not able to reach the end of the program described in its input when direct execution and world-class simulators are perfectly able to reach that end of exactly the same input?

 I am going to ignore all of your nonsense posts.