Subject: Re: Why I post to the C / C++ groups --- Most important agreement in five years
On 11/4/2026 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/1/2026 3:04 PM, dbush wrote:
On 11/1/2026 3:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/1/2026 2:38 PM, dbush wrote:
On 11/1/2026 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/1/2026 2:18 PM, dbush wrote:
On 11/1/2026 1:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/1/2026 11:59 AM, dbush wrote:
On 11/1/2026 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/1/2026 9:09 AM, dbush wrote:
On 11/1/2026 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/1/2026 8:01 AM, dbush wrote:
On 11/1/2026 8:35 AM, olcott wrote:
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
01 int DD()
02 {
03ÿÿ int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
04ÿÿ if (Halt_Status)
05ÿÿÿÿ HERE: goto HERE;
06ÿÿ return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11ÿ HHH(DD);
12 }
The C / C++ groups are the only people in the
world that did not flat out lie about this question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does DD simulated by HHH ever reach its own "return" >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement while DD is being simulated by HHH?
The above statement is unclear as "DD" and "HHH" could be >>>>>>>>>>>> referring to:
* an algorithm, i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions that always generates the same output for a >>>>>>>>>>>> given input.
* a C function, i.e. a named address that can contain any >>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary set of instructions in sequence
* a finite string, i.e. a 32-bit function pointer which is >>>>>>>>>>>> the starting address of a C function.
So please clarify whether each use of "HHH" and "DD" in the >>>>>>>>>>>> above sentence refers to an algorithm, a C function, or a >>>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
DD is to be construed as a finite string of C source
code of a C function. HHH is to be construed as a C
interpreter that simulates C source code. HHH can
simulate itself simulating DD if needed.
So would the following be correct?
Does C function DD simulated by C function HHH ever reach its >>>>>>>>>> own "return" statement while C function DD is being simulated >>>>>>>>>> by C function HHH?
Yes that seems correct.
Does C function DD simulated by C function
HHH ever reach its own [SIMULATED] "return" statement
while C function DD is being simulated by
C function HHH?
Does there exist a finite number of N simulations
such that DD simulated by HHH reaches its own
simulated "return" statement while DD is being
simulated by HHH?
Let apply the same to the above, with a few more clarifications: >>>>>>>>
Does there exist a finite number of N simulations that C
function HHH
can be modified to perform such that C function DD simulated >>>>>>>> by C function HHH reaches its own
simulated "return" statement while C function DD is being
simulated by C function HHH?
Yes?
There does not exist any HHH that simulates DD according
to the operational semantics of the C programming language
such that the simulated DD reaches its own simulated
return statement in any N finite number of simulations.
There does not exist any [algorithm|C function|finite string]
HHH that simulates [algorithm|C function|finite string] DD according >>>>>> ÿ> to the operational semantics of the C programming language
such that the simulated [algorithm|C function|finite string] DD >>>>>> reaches its own simulated
return statement in any N finite number of simulations.
For each instance of "[algorithm|C function|finite string]" above, >>>>>> pick one and give the resulting sentence.
DD is to be construed as a finite string of C source
code of a C function. HHH is to be construed as a C
interpreter that simulates C source code. HHH can
simulate itself simulating DD if needed.
So would this be correct?
There does not exist any *implementation of* C function HHH that
simulates C function DD according
to the operational semantics of the C programming language
such that the simulated C function DD reaches its own simulated
return statement in any N finite number of simulations.
Yes [any *implementation of* C function HHH] is actually clearer.
Good.ÿ Then *I agree that the above statement is correct*.
Thanks again dbush
Not merely agreement with my words.
A vast improvement over my words by his questions.
The *any implementation of* makes these words as
powerful as possible.
--
Copyright 2026 Olcott
Computation(Olcott)
Paraphrase of Emil Post definition of computation
All computations are equivalent to the application of finite
string transformation rules to finite string inputs to derive
any and all outputs.
Because Post canonical systems are Turing-equivalent, anything
that cannot be derived by applying finite string transformations
to finite strings is outside the scope of Church?Turing computation.
Decider(Olcott)
Correcting the misnomer term-of-the-art: decider
Every Decider(Olcott) must apply finite string transformation
inference steps to their finite string inputs that are relevant
to the decision criteria. It must make its decision on this basis.
Halt Decider(Olcott)
Decider(Olcott) entails that Halt Decider(Olcott) H(D) must apply
finite-string inference steps according to the operational semantics
of the source-code computation language of D. The only way to determine
the halting property of a finite string input is to examine the same
beha