On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
is exactly the same as HHH except that DD does not
call HHH1(DD) in recursive simulation.
I already pointed out the massive problem with this.
If HHH1 is identical to HHH, it means that HHH1 and HHH
are only different names for exactly the same function.
Functions do not have differences in behavior based
on what name is being used to refer to them.
You have a bug there.
A guy that is smart enough to do this
https://www.nongnu.org/txr/txr-manpage.html#N-CF27E2FE
... is not you, even by a long shot.
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/22/2025 11:56 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
is exactly the same as HHH except that DD does not
call HHH1(DD) in recursive simulation.
I already pointed out the massive problem with this.
If HHH1 is identical to HHH, it means that HHH1 and HHH
are only different names for exactly the same function.
In the mathematical abstraction that simply pretends
the behavioral details don't exist the math itself is
also a damned liar.
The fact that two different names are used to refer to exactly the same function does not constitute a "behavior detail" of that function.
That you are trying to get away with ignoring these
details from the stipulated perspective of the execution
trace in C according to the semantics of C makes you
a damned liar even when referring to the mathematical
abstraction.
If you want your C functions to correspond to recursive
functions in computation theory, you have to code them
according to certain rules.
One of those is that you may not conclude that if f1 != f2 (pointer comparison) then they are different functions.
On 11/22/2025 10:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/22/2025 11:56 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
is exactly the same as HHH except that DD does not
call HHH1(DD) in recursive simulation.
I already pointed out the massive problem with this.
If HHH1 is identical to HHH, it means that HHH1 and HHH
are only different names for exactly the same function.
In the mathematical abstraction that simply pretends
the behavioral details don't exist the math itself is
also a damned liar.
The fact that two different names are used to refer to exactly the same
function does not constitute a "behavior detail" of that function.
That you are trying to get away with ignoring these
details from the stipulated perspective of the execution
trace in C according to the semantics of C makes you
a damned liar even when referring to the mathematical
abstraction.
If you want your C functions to correspond to recursive
functions in computation theory, you have to code them
according to certain rules.
One of those is that you may not conclude that if f1 != f2 (pointer
comparison) then they are different functions.
HHH1 is at line 589 - 665
HHH is at line 1081 - 1156
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
When DD calls HHH through of C interpreter
it does not call HHH1 because HHH1 has a
different name and is at a different location.
When you show that you know this
https://www.nongnu.org/txr/
no one is going to think you are too stupid
to know how C interpreters work.
On 2025-11-23, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/22/2025 10:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/22/2025 11:56 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
is exactly the same as HHH except that DD does not
call HHH1(DD) in recursive simulation.
I already pointed out the massive problem with this.
If HHH1 is identical to HHH, it means that HHH1 and HHH
are only different names for exactly the same function.
In the mathematical abstraction that simply pretends
the behavioral details don't exist the math itself is
also a damned liar.
The fact that two different names are used to refer to exactly the same
function does not constitute a "behavior detail" of that function.
That you are trying to get away with ignoring these
details from the stipulated perspective of the execution
trace in C according to the semantics of C makes you
a damned liar even when referring to the mathematical
abstraction.
If you want your C functions to correspond to recursive
functions in computation theory, you have to code them
according to certain rules.
One of those is that you may not conclude that if f1 != f2 (pointer
comparison) then they are different functions.
HHH1 is at line 589 - 665
HHH is at line 1081 - 1156
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
When DD calls HHH through of C interpreter
it does not call HHH1 because HHH1 has a
different name and is at a different location.
That's just the thing! If this were correctly implemented then in fact
DD /wold be/ calling HHH1, using the name HHH.
On 11/22/2025 11:24 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-23, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/22/2025 10:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/22/2025 11:56 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
is exactly the same as HHH except that DD does not
call HHH1(DD) in recursive simulation.
I already pointed out the massive problem with this.
If HHH1 is identical to HHH, it means that HHH1 and HHH
are only different names for exactly the same function.
In the mathematical abstraction that simply pretends
the behavioral details don't exist the math itself is
also a damned liar.
The fact that two different names are used to refer to exactly the same >>>> function does not constitute a "behavior detail" of that function.
That you are trying to get away with ignoring these
details from the stipulated perspective of the execution
trace in C according to the semantics of C makes you
a damned liar even when referring to the mathematical
abstraction.
If you want your C functions to correspond to recursive
functions in computation theory, you have to code them
according to certain rules.
One of those is that you may not conclude that if f1 != f2 (pointer
comparison) then they are different functions.
HHH1 is at line˙ 589 -˙ 665
HHH˙ is at line 1081 - 1156
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
When DD calls HHH through of C interpreter
it does not call HHH1 because HHH1 has a
different name and is at a different location.
That's just the thing! If this were correctly implemented then in fact
DD /wold be/ calling HHH1, using the name HHH.
*You (and everyone in the comp.lang.c group) that*
*you are a damned liar about this*
Because this and other such liars prevent truth
from becoming computable and that this can have
very dire consequences this might get you
condemned to actual Hell if such a place exists.
On 11/22/2025 11:24 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
That's just the thing! If this were correctly implemented then in fact
DD /wold be/ calling HHH1, using the name HHH.
*You (and everyone in the comp.lang.c group) that*
*you are a damned liar about this*
Because this and other such liars prevent truth
from becoming computable and that this can have
very dire consequences this might get you
condemned to actual Hell if such a place exists.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 237:52:38 |
| Calls: | 184 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 82,414 |