XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++
From: polcott333@gmail.com

On 11/14/2025 12:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, olcott  wrote:
>> On 11/13/2025 8:32 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-14, olcott  wrote:
>>>> So you still don't understand that when H sees
>>>> that D calls the same function twice in sequence
>>>> with the same arguments and has no conditional
>>>> code inbetween its invocation and this function
>>>> call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>>
>>> No. Obvious counterexample:
>>>
>>> void D(void)
>>> {
>>>     printf("calling this twice\n");
>>>     // no conditionals here
>>>     printf("calling this twice\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>> You're simply not able to run a simple specification through your head
>>> to identify the ways in which it might not reflect your intent.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you post such ridiculous nonsense?
>
> The above "D calls the same function (printf) twice in sequence with the
> same arguments ("calling this twice\n") and has no conditional code
> inbetween its invocation and this function call". It meets your
> criteria; therefore it must be "isomorphic to infinite recursion".
>
>> Are you a complete jackass or only partial?
>
> I'm only conveying to you that the above function meets the words you
> have written.
>

OK then I apologize.

> If you didn't intend that, that is your problem. I'm just the messenger.
>
> Such a messenger wouldn't be necessary if you could think for yourself.
>

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
I forgot a detail on line 996

Calls the same function from the same machine address
with no conditional branches in between its invocation
and this function call.

>> This is my life's work and you baselessly
>> denigrate it with stupid shit like resuming
>> infinite recursion will cause it to halt.
>
> When your life's work is being reviewed for publication, so that you can
> become a renowned computer scientist, is this how you are going to
> respond to your reviewers, and do you think that will work?
>

If they mistreated me I may be much more harsh.

> Your idea that when a decider abandons a simulation and returns zero,
> the simuation is "totally killed" does not hold water. Mathematical
> entities are never "killed".
>

The above non-halting behavior axiom is correct.
It conclusively proves the D simulated by H cannot
possibly ever reach its own simulated "return"
statement.

> You should be glad that we caught this problem here, before
> you took your life's work to academia for publication.
>

No one is going to publish my work on the halting
problem. Once they see the title of the paper they
dismiss it as ridiculous.

LLM systems can immediately verify that it is
totally correct and they prove that they have
the equivalent of human expert understanding
many different ways.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)