Re: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by a simple example in C

On 5/16/25 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 10:33 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 17/05/2025 03:55, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 9:44 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 17/05/2025 03:24, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

>
When you dishonestly remove the context that you are
replying to fools might think that your rebuttal has merit.

>
The context you claim was 'dishonestly' removed is:
>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
with which we are all too, too familiar.
>
The context merely shows that the only information HHH receives is a pointer to a function.
>
That's not enough for HHH to be able to do what you claim for it *within the rules of C*.
>

>
Unless there is also an interpreter also written in C.

>
No, not even then, for reasons I have already explained.
>

Any competent C programmer would know that C programs
can be simulated by C interpreters. If they don't know
this then that are not competent.

>
A C interpreter (eg CH or CINT, both of which have Wiki pages, in case you're interested) doesn't simulate C code. It interprets C code. You don't pass C code to HHH in the form of a char * - "void DDD()\n{\n\tHHH(DDD);\n\treturn;\n}\n", say - to HHH(). You pass a function pointer. All HHH() can do with that pointer value is:
>

 It is possible to create a C function that
simulates the source-code of other C functions.
The essential idea of this is a C interpreter.

WHich means you need to pass it the source code of the funciton.

 The actual HHH uses x86 emulation that is way
over most peoples heads. When I said that HHH
simulates DDD reviewers are not free to ignore
the word "simulate".

No, and the fact that you think x86 simulation is way over peoples heads just shows how little you understand about it.

 They do this because they only glance at a
couple of my words to artificially contrive
some fake rebuttal.
 

No, the rebuttals are not "fake". Your understanding of them is though.
Since you have admitted that your input violates the category requirements to be a valid input for a halt decider, all you have done is proving you just don't know what you are talking about. You need to keep on repeating your same points and not go into better explainations because you don't HAVE a better basis. To break down and look more basic will clearly reveal your errors, and my guess is you at least subconsciously know this, so you don't.
All this just ends up proving how ignorant you are of the field, that you don't actually care about what it true, and thus you feel ok about being just a pathological liar.