Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 4/27/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/27/24 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/27/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>
// The following is written in C
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y)    // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07   if (Halt_Status)
08     HERE: goto HERE;
09   return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14   D(D);
15 }
>
Execution Trace
Line 14: main() invokes D(D)
>
keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 06: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
Simulation invariant
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 09.
>
Is it dead obvious to everyone here when examining the execution
trace of lines 14 and 06 above that D correctly simulated by H cannot
possibly terminate normally by reaching its own line 09?
>
>

>
Except that you fail to mention that you have admitted that you are NOT working on the Halting Problem, despite trying to use terminology similar to it, but having stipulated definition that are in conflict with computaiton theory.
>
Note, "keeps repeating (unless aborted)" is a misleading statement, as your H will ALWAYS abort this input, and thus it NEVER will "Keep repeating".
>
You don't like me pointing out the problem because you prefer to be able to LIE to people about what you are doing.
>
You work has NOTHING to do with Halting, as your H/D are not even turing equivalenet to their namesakes in the proof you like to mention.

>
That is the exact verbatim post and the first respondent agreed
and immediately noticed that I was referring to the halting problem.
>
So I will go with what I said, you just don't know C very
well and want to keep that hidden behind rhetoric and denigration.
>
>

>
>
Yes, you couch it to SOUND like the halting problem, but it isn't as you have FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED the meaning of terms.
>
And thus, to act like it is, just makes you a LIAR.
>
Halting is NOT about H being able to simulate it input to the final state. PERIOD.
>

 I could show how it is but you prefer to believe otherwise and refuse
to go through the detailed steps required.

No, you CAN'T, because you have FUNDAMENTALLY changed the question, sinc eyou claim that even though D(D) Halts, that H(D,D) is correct to say not halting.

 It is psychotic that people really believes that the principle of
explosion is valid inference even though there is zero doubt the it
derives the non-sequitur error.

Nope, that just means you don't understand how logic works.
YOU are the psychotic.

 *When we encode the principle of explosion as a syllogism*
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is not a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a butterfly.

Nope. And that is because the principle of explosion is NOT a "syllogism"
You are again just proving your stupidity.

 The conclusion does not follow from the premises, thus the non-sequitur error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

So, which step doesn't is incorrect.
Givens:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
Goal:
Prove B
Steps
1) Since True | x is always true
2) and A is True (1st Given)
3) The statement A | B must be true.
4) Since if False | x is true, x must be true
5) and A is False (2nd Given)
6) and A | B is True (from 3)
7) it must be that B is True.
QED
Where is the error?

 Marilyn Vos Savant has a simple explanation for this:
Most everyone is simply indoctrinated to conform thus loses the
ability to think for themselves.
 

You are just showing that you are NOT out to promote truth, but to try to infiltrate logic with your ERRORS and LIES to allow you to claim things that are just not true, just like those you try to put down, like the election denyers.
>
You are WORSE than them.

 And you too are sure that the Principle of Explosion of explosion is
valid inference because like most everyone you believe that textbooks
are inherently infallible, thus when they directly contradict each
other this "word of God" is simply beyond human comprehension.
 

If you think it isn't a valid inference, point out the error in the proof of it above.
All you are doing is proving that you don't actually believe in logic.
This explains most of your errors and why your speach is so full of lies, you don't actually believe in the concepts of Logic, or Truth, but they are just objects to be manipulated to try to get your way.
Your native tongue is Lies, as it was of your father below.