Notorious computer science troll, Pete Olcott
-
I had a feeling of being trolled in the C++ subforum: [Can D simulated by H terminate normally? - C / C++ / MFC Discussion Boards](https://www.codeproject.com/Messages/5942732/Can-D-simulated-by-H-terminate-normally) On the surface it doesn't look too bad, but it turns out that the author is infamous for this sort of thing: [Pete Olcott: Troll or Ignoramus?](https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/0i86aQ3WPaA)
-
I had a feeling of being trolled in the C++ subforum: [Can D simulated by H terminate normally? - C / C++ / MFC Discussion Boards](https://www.codeproject.com/Messages/5942732/Can-D-simulated-by-H-terminate-normally) On the surface it doesn't look too bad, but it turns out that the author is infamous for this sort of thing: [Pete Olcott: Troll or Ignoramus?](https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/0i86aQ3WPaA)
Or maybe this guy is trolling the troll?
-
I had a feeling of being trolled in the C++ subforum: [Can D simulated by H terminate normally? - C / C++ / MFC Discussion Boards](https://www.codeproject.com/Messages/5942732/Can-D-simulated-by-H-terminate-normally) On the surface it doesn't look too bad, but it turns out that the author is infamous for this sort of thing: [Pete Olcott: Troll or Ignoramus?](https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/0i86aQ3WPaA)
Looking at his reply on his other copy of the same question:
Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? - Algorithms Discussion Boards[^]
I know that the answer is dead obvious (at least to me) I need to know whether or not the answer is equally dead obvious to other professional software engineers. I have been a professional C++ software engineer since 2004.
So he posted multiple copies of the same question, to which he already claims to know the answer, just to gauge whether we're as clever as him. :doh: Troll[^] and trolling[^].
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I had a feeling of being trolled in the C++ subforum: [Can D simulated by H terminate normally? - C / C++ / MFC Discussion Boards](https://www.codeproject.com/Messages/5942732/Can-D-simulated-by-H-terminate-normally) On the surface it doesn't look too bad, but it turns out that the author is infamous for this sort of thing: [Pete Olcott: Troll or Ignoramus?](https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/0i86aQ3WPaA)
Although people have very consistently treated me very badly what I have been saying is clearly correct software engineering. Can D simulated by H terminate normally? The x86utm operating system based on an open source x86 emulator. This system enables one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode. When H simulates D it creates a separate process context for D with its own memory, stack and virtual registers. H is able to simulate D simulating itself, thus the only limit to recursive simulations is RAM.
01 int D(int (*x)())
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }Execution Trace main() calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11 keeps repeating: simulated D(D) calls simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 03 ... Is this clear enough to see that D correctly simulated by H can never terminate normally? (because D remains stuck in recursive simulation) I never mentioned this next part in any of my questions because it extends beyond the scope of software engineering.
Quote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. Wikipedia: Halting Problem
ADDENDUM By showing the above at the software engineering level with fully operational code there cannot be any gaps in reasoning that occur when examining these things at the Turing Machine level. Once these things are fully understood at the software engineering level then they can be applied to the Peter Linz (Turing machine based) Halting Problem proof on pages 1-2 of this paper: Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs It is easy to see that these two examples are isomorphic once the software engineering of the above example is fully understood.
-
Although people have very consistently treated me very badly what I have been saying is clearly correct software engineering. Can D simulated by H terminate normally? The x86utm operating system based on an open source x86 emulator. This system enables one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode. When H simulates D it creates a separate process context for D with its own memory, stack and virtual registers. H is able to simulate D simulating itself, thus the only limit to recursive simulations is RAM.
01 int D(int (*x)())
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }Execution Trace main() calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11 keeps repeating: simulated D(D) calls simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 03 ... Is this clear enough to see that D correctly simulated by H can never terminate normally? (because D remains stuck in recursive simulation) I never mentioned this next part in any of my questions because it extends beyond the scope of software engineering.
Quote:
For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. Wikipedia: Halting Problem
ADDENDUM By showing the above at the software engineering level with fully operational code there cannot be any gaps in reasoning that occur when examining these things at the Turing Machine level. Once these things are fully understood at the software engineering level then they can be applied to the Peter Linz (Turing machine based) Halting Problem proof on pages 1-2 of this paper: Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs It is easy to see that these two examples are isomorphic once the software engineering of the above example is fully understood.
-
Except recursion will never be infinite in the real world, it will blow the stack first, yes?
-
Except recursion will never be infinite in the real world, it will blow the stack first, yes?
