Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/8/2025 6:45 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:

On 5/8/2025 5:26 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

[...]

I am more nearly an expert on C than on the Halting Problem.
Watching olcott base his arguments on C *and getting C so badly
wrong* leads me to think that he is largely ignorant of C (which is
fine, most people are) and is unwilling to admit it.  Watching the
reactions of actual experts to his mathematical arguments leads me
to the same conclusion about his knowledge of the relevant fields
of mathematics.
>

>
If Halt7.c is not compiled with the Microsoft
compiler then it will not produce the required
object file type.
>
The rest of the system has compiled under
Linux. I haven't tried this in a few years.

[...]
So you normally compile your code using the 2017 version of
Microsoft
Visual Studio.
I have no particular problem with that, but your failure to correct
a number of C errors in your code is odd.

>
As I already proved Microsoft reported no such errors.

Microsoft's compiler did not report certain errors that any conforming C
compiler is required by the standard to report.

Microsoft's compiler *can* be invoked in a way that causes it to
diagnose such errors, though it may or may not become fully conforming.
I haven't used it lately, but a web search should tell you how to do
that.

 I've pointed out several
syntax errors and constraint violations; at least the syntax errors
would be trivial to fix (even if your compiler is lax enough to
fail to diagnose them).  Richard Heathfield has pointed out code
that dereferences a null pointer.
 

>
Mike corrected Richard on this.
Those are stub functions intercepted
by x86utm the operating system.
>

You are using C, a language in which you appear to have little
apparent expertise or willingness to learn, to demonstrate claims
that, if true, would overturn ideas that have been generally accepted
for decades.  Can you understand why I might decide that analyzing
your claims is not worth my time?
 

>
I learned C back when K & R was the standard.

So did I.  I've kept up with the language as it has changed.

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  return;
}
>
We don't need to look at any of my code for me
to totally prove my point.

Great.  Then why do you keep posting code?  Or is the above DDD()
function not included in "any of my code")?

                           For example when
the above DDD is correctly simulated by HHH
this simulated DDD cannot possibly reach its own
"return" instruction.

That's too vague for me to comment.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */