On 11/18/2025 3:30 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 2:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Newsgroups: trimmed ]
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 12:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 12:04 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:43:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
The information that HHH is given is the same as a C execution >>>>>>>>> environment is given for a direct exectuion.
No it is not.
What information are HHH, HHH1, a UTM and an x86 processor given >>>>>>> or not? What is different, what is missing?
If you understood what ordinary recursion
is you would have known this a long time ago.
You patronising little bastard.
I asked her time and time again whether
she had any actual programming experience.
That lack of any response would seem to
indicate negative.
That's totally irrelevant. A straight question was asked, and you
chose to insult rather than giving a straight answer.
After my straight question was either dodged or lied about for more
than three years ....
I have seen no question of yours habitually dodged or lied about.
People, including me, have answered your questions honestly and
truthfully.
.... I upped the ante to counter baseless denigration of my work ....
I have seen no baseless denigration of your work. Other posters have
given up their time to review and criticise your work. You have failed
to take that criticism on board.
.... that is an example of the "reckless disregard for the truth" that
loses libel cases.
No, it is a thankless striving after the truth. And even if you were
right in what you're saying, it wouldn't be a libel cause, since it's not defamation directed at your person.
If I didn't do this then the baseless denigration of my work could be
construed as correct. It would be stupid of me to tolerate that.
You mean if you didn't answer pertinent straight questions with
derogatory insults and innuendo. If you actually acted honourably on
this newgroup you might find things going better for you.
Not having any understanding of ordinary
recursion makes it impossible for you to understand.
Joes understands recursion full well, just like every other poster on >>>>> this group.
When I say that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation
translates into DD blah, blah, blah blah blah
you will never be able to get it.
That wasn't the question asked. The question asked is still cited
above, and you appear unable to answer it. Or maybe you lack the
manners to do so.
The implied base question which everyone here (besides Ben) either
dodged or expressed counter-factual assessment was:
Do you understand that DD simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
As a fact, HHH simulating DD _can_ reach DD's return instruction. Kaz
and Mike have actually tried this out using your HHH and seen it reaching
the return. You have dodged their findings.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
Weasel word double talk excuses do not count
as a single contiguous execution trace in C
showing exactly how and why DD simulated by
HHH reaches its own simulated "return" statement
final halt state.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- PyGate Linux v1.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)