Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 7/11/2025 4:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:Only because your HHH doesn't do a correct and complete simualtion,Op 10.jul.2025 om 16:30 schreef olcott:void DDD()On 7/10/2025 6:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:>Op 09.jul.2025 om 14:54 schreef olcott:>>>One of these "errors" was that HHH cannot simulate itself at all.>
As usual you twist the words of your reviewers.
The claim was that no HHH can simulate itself correctly *up to the end*.
>https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf>
Is the full execution trace of
>
executed HHH simulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls emulated emulated HHH(DDD)
And it also proves my claim that HHH did not simulate itself correctly *up to the end*.
>
Exactly what is your professional programming experience?
I have 20 years in C++ and became a professional programmer
in 1986.
>
Irrelevant, even when it is more than your experience.
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
Anyone that cannot see that DDD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
(a) Has woefully deficient knowledge
(b) Is a liar.
Wrong. COBOL programs can use recursion. I guess you don't understand what you are talking about.Even a proof of a first year student can be a correct proof.I want to see if you have the capacity to understand.
Apparently you ran out of counter arguments and try the authority card.
COBOL experience counts as zero programming experience
relative to anything about recursion.
Right, but HHH only conditionally simulated DDD, and that includes the HHH the DDD calls, and thus the actual recursion is conditional, and finite.So, we see that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end.Because DDD unconditionally calls HHH(DDD).
Do you know what unconditionally means?
Something beyound your underwstanding.This failure of HHH isentirely your own misconception.
an important fact in your code, because it shows that simulation is not the right tool for all inputs.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.