Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
Given olcott's code,
#include <stdint.h>
typedef void (*ptr)();
void P(ptr x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
}
and olcott's assertion that H is a pure function and H(P,P) == 0,
then, P should halt as H should also return 0 to P
You mean P(P) should halt, and it does. PO does not dispute this fact.
Not only has he posted a trace of P(P) halting, he has clearly stated
that H(P,P) == 0 "is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".[1]
(pure functions
ALWAYS return the same result for the same arguments with no side
effects). P doesn't halt so H is erroneous; olcott, it's really that
simple.
Except that he is now just asserting that H(P,P) == 0 is correct about something else (the "correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)") and the mistakes in that irrelevant statement are keeping him supplied with the attention he craves. You might consider not giving him what he wants.
[1] Message-ID: <c8idnbFAF6C8QuP8nZ2dnUU7-avNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 115:29:48 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,334,132 |