• Re: Claude AI understands this rebuttal of Ben --- Category Error

    From joes@[email protected] to comp.theory on Mon Nov 3 14:03:20 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    Am Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:08:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 10/30/2025 5:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-10-29 16:41:32 +0000, olcott said:
    On 10/29/2025 5:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

    To determine that DD halts is not merely possible but easy. Just
    simulate it until it halts (which doesn't take a long time) and there
    it is. The same with any other camputaion that halts, though the time
    to find out may be longer.

    H simulates D that calls H(D) to simulate D that calls H(D) to
    simulate D that calls H(D) to simulate D that calls H(D) to simulate D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D until H sees this repeating pattern.

    And what happens if it sees?

    D simulated by H according to the semantics of the C programming
    language until H correctly determines that its simulated D cannot
    possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement correctly rejects D
    on this basis not some other basis.
    Make sure that you see the word "until"

    Yes, and then what?
    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@[email protected] to comp.theory on Mon Nov 3 17:37:11 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 11/2/2025 6:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-11-01 13:39:53 +0000, olcott said:

    On 11/1/2025 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-10-31 12:21:55 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/31/2025 6:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-10-30 13:08:12 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/30/2025 5:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-10-29 16:41:32 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/29/2025 5:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-10-28 09:41:56 +0000, joes said:

    Am Sun, 26 Oct 2025 09:56:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

    I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H >>>>>>>>>>>> (it's
    trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>>>>>>> that P(P)
    *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and >>>>>>>>>>>> accepts that
    P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by >>>>>>>>>>>> what would
    happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they >>>>>>>>>>>> actually are.
    HHH does abort though and returns 1 to DD.

    *This is Claude AI summarizing my rebuttal of Ben's words* >>>>>>>>>>
    The philosophical point: A Turing machine decider should only be >>>>>>>>>>> expected to report on properties determinable from its input. >>>>>>>>>>> When the
    halting problem construction makes the "actual behavior" >>>>>>>>>>> dependent on the decider's output, it's asking the decider to >>>>>>>>>>> report on
    something outside its input - hence, a category error.
    And you think it’s impossible to programmatically determine >>>>>>>>>> that DD halts?
    *Every* single program is decidable.

    To determine that DD halts is not merely possible but easy. >>>>>>>>> Just simulate
    it until it halts (which doesn't take a long time) and there it >>>>>>>>> is. The
    same with any other camputaion that halts, though the time to >>>>>>>>> find out
    may be linger.

    int D()
    {
       int Halt_Status = H(D);
       if (Halt_Status)
         HERE: goto HERE;
       return Halt_Status;
    }

    H simulates D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    until H sees this repeating pattern.

    And what happens if it sees?

    D simulated by H according to the semantics
    of the C programming language until H correctly
    determines that its simulated D cannot possibly
    reach its own simulated "return" statement
    correctly rejects D on this basis not some other
    basis.

    This is possible except the word "correctly". But that is not the
    last thing that happens. Then H returns zero to its caller, which
    in this case is D, and D returns the zero to the program that
    called D. Because D halts the rejection by H is not correct, and
    therefore we can observe that H is not a halt decider.


    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()

    There is only one D above.

    Thousands of times I refer to D simulated by H
    and despicably dishonest people use the despicably
    dishonest tactic of strawman to refer to the directly
    executed D as their rebuttal.

    It is the same D. There is no other D above.


    It is not the same D.
    If you would work through the execution trace
    rather than bet your own soul that I must be
    wrong you would see this.

    D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
    own "return" statement even if God commands it.
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tristan Wibberley@[email protected] to comp.theory on Tue Nov 4 01:02:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 03/11/2025 23:37, olcott wrote:

    It is the same D. There is no other D above.


    It is not the same D.

    It's the same D with different closure, when we're talking theory. It's
    only a different D when we're talking ordinary programming where D is a template for a running procedure and each time you call D you "get
    another D".

    --
    Tristan Wibberley

    The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
    citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
    of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
    verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
    promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
    of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
    superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
    any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
    will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaz Kylheku@[email protected] to comp.theory on Tue Nov 4 01:17:59 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 2025-11-04, Tristan Wibberley <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 03/11/2025 23:37, olcott wrote:

    It is the same D. There is no other D above.


    It is not the same D.

    It's the same D with different closure, when we're talking theory. It's
    only a different D when we're talking ordinary programming where D is a template for a running procedure and each time you call D you "get
    another D".

    Going with your closure terminology that includes parameters,
    which I understand and don't mind:

    D has no parameters, so its only closure consists of the two
    symbols its body refers to: itself, D, and H.

    These two do not change among invocations of D.

    Therefore, there are no multiple invocations (simulated or otherwise) of
    D that have different closures.

    There really is just one D with one closure.
    --
    TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
    Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
    Mastodon: @[email protected]
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@[email protected] to comp.theory on Mon Nov 3 19:20:19 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 11/3/2025 7:02 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
    On 03/11/2025 23:37, olcott wrote:

    It is the same D. There is no other D above.


    It is not the same D.

    It's the same D with different closure, when we're talking theory. It's
    only a different D when we're talking ordinary programming where D is a template for a running procedure and each time you call D you "get
    another D".


    It is a verified fact that D simulated by H cannot
    possibly reach its own "return" statement final halt
    state and D simulated by H1 halts.

    This exact same thing happens in the Peter Linz
    Turing machine based proof.

    *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this* https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf

    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞, // accept state
    Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn // reject state

    --
    Tristan Wibberley

    The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
    citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
    of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
    verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
    promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
    of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
    superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
    any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
    will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
    hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaz Kylheku@[email protected] to comp.theory on Tue Nov 4 01:48:42 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 2025-11-04, olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 11/3/2025 7:02 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
    On 03/11/2025 23:37, olcott wrote:

    It is the same D. There is no other D above.


    It is not the same D.

    It's the same D with different closure, when we're talking theory. It's
    only a different D when we're talking ordinary programming where D is a
    template for a running procedure and each time you call D you "get
    another D".


    It is a verified fact that D simulated by H cannot
    possibly reach its own "return" statement final halt
    state and D simulated by H1 halts.

    No it isn't. You "verified" this by writing a thing called the x86utm,
    that you no longer discuss, because it was found that the simulated D
    /can/ reach its halt state, if it is simulated after H has reached
    its verdict and stopped simulating it.

    That was the closest thing you had to "verified".

    Other than that, all you have is unsubstantiated, repeated claims
    filling up comp.theory, plus somet things you posted to ResearchGate,
    as well as the liarparadox.org domain you control.

    That material has no rigor whatsoever amounting to
    "just believe me when I say that, ...".

    This exact same thing happens in the Peter Linz
    Turing machine based proof.

    *From the bottom of page 319 has been adapted to this* https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf

    In your adaptation of that, there is also a simulation which
    is abandoned and which can be stepped to a halting state.

    That can be regarded as the reason it happens that way in the
    code; the issue originates here.
    --
    TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
    Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
    Mastodon: @[email protected]
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tristan Wibberley@[email protected] to comp.theory on Tue Nov 4 08:57:37 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 04/11/2025 01:17, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-04, Tristan Wibberley <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 03/11/2025 23:37, olcott wrote:

    It is the same D. There is no other D above.


    It is not the same D.

    It's the same D with different closure, when we're talking theory. It's
    only a different D when we're talking ordinary programming where D is a
    template for a running procedure and each time you call D you "get
    another D".

    Going with your closure terminology that includes parameters,
    which I understand and don't mind:

    and includes global variables/machine state/machine variant.

    There are two machine variants: the toplevel, and the
    simulations/emulations. A solution to the situation statement is that H
    detects it is in the toplevel and uses one strategy or detects it is in
    the emulation and uses another strategy. Thus the situation is fulfilled.

    --
    Tristan Wibberley

    The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
    citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
    of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
    verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
    promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
    of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
    superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
    any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
    will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mikko@[email protected] to comp.theory on Tue Nov 4 11:42:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.theory

    On 2025-11-03 23:37:11 +0000, olcott said:

    On 11/2/2025 6:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-11-01 13:39:53 +0000, olcott said:

    On 11/1/2025 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-10-31 12:21:55 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/31/2025 6:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-10-30 13:08:12 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/30/2025 5:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-10-29 16:41:32 +0000, olcott said:

    On 10/29/2025 5:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-10-28 09:41:56 +0000, joes said:

    Am Sun, 26 Oct 2025 09:56:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

    I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's
    trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
    *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and accepts that
    P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by what would
    happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.
    HHH does abort though and returns 1 to DD.

    *This is Claude AI summarizing my rebuttal of Ben's words* >>>>>>>>>>>
    The philosophical point: A Turing machine decider should only be >>>>>>>>>>>> expected to report on properties determinable from its input. When the
    halting problem construction makes the "actual behavior" >>>>>>>>>>>> dependent on the decider's output, it's asking the decider to report on
    something outside its input - hence, a category error.
    And you think it’s impossible to programmatically determine that DD halts?
    *Every* single program is decidable.

    To determine that DD halts is not merely possible but easy. Just simulate
    it until it halts (which doesn't take a long time) and there it is. The
    same with any other camputaion that halts, though the time to find out
    may be linger.

    int D()
    {
       int Halt_Status = H(D);
       if (Halt_Status)
         HERE: goto HERE;
       return Halt_Status;
    }

    H simulates D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    that calls H(D) to simulate D
    until H sees this repeating pattern.

    And what happens if it sees?

    D simulated by H according to the semantics
    of the C programming language until H correctly
    determines that its simulated D cannot possibly
    reach its own simulated "return" statement
    correctly rejects D on this basis not some other
    basis.

    This is possible except the word "correctly". But that is not the
    last thing that happens. Then H returns zero to its caller, which
    in this case is D, and D returns the zero to the program that
    called D. Because D halts the rejection by H is not correct, and
    therefore we can observe that H is not a halt decider.


    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()
    D simulated by H Not D executed from main()

    There is only one D above.

    Thousands of times I refer to D simulated by H
    and despicably dishonest people use the despicably
    dishonest tactic of strawman to refer to the directly
    executed D as their rebuttal.

    It is the same D. There is no other D above.

    It is not the same D.
    If you would work through the execution trace
    rather than bet your own soul that I must be
    wrong you would see this.

    Unless you can pöoint out what in

    int D()
    {
       int Halt_Status = H(D);
       if (Halt_Status)
         HERE: goto HERE;
       return Halt_Status;
    }

    is different from

    int D()
    {
       int Halt_Status = H(D);
       if (Halt_Status)
         HERE: goto HERE;
       return Halt_Status;
    }

    we are justified to say that they are the same.
    --
    Mikko

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2