On 11/1/2026 1:30 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/01/2026 10:53 AM, 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 >>> ÿ> 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.

To make the request for clarification more explicit:

Does [algorithm|C function|finite string] DD simulated by

[algorithm| C function|finite string] HHH ever reach its own
"return"

statement while [algorithm|C function|finite string] DD is

being simulated by [algorithm|C function|finite string] HHH?

For each instance of "[algorithm|C function|finite string]" above, >>>>>>> pick one and give the resulting sentence.

That's idiocy when there sits under that function pointer a block
of memory full of instructions that according to otherwise the
content of registers and the machine and resource model and
the instruction set architecture what results a _closed_ model
of computation, that "static analysis" and "dynamic analysis"
are simple after code understanding.

"The semantics of the C runtime" include that there's an actual implementation, then whether it's Harvard or von Neuman the
program memory, and whether it's simply readable, is a fact
that already outside the box, that is the box.

Shut Up

My code has been fully operational since 2022.
It actually operates at the x86 machine code
level. I examine it at the C source code code
because x86 assembly language is a lost art.

Each HHH creates a virtual machine with its own
registers and stack as its simulation environment
for each instance of DD.

--
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