Re: D(D) simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03

On 5/3/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/3/2024 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/3/24 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr 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 }
>
We are examining the behavior of D(D) for every possible H/D pair
where 1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H.
>
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 01
Line 02
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
(a) It is a verified fact that for every possible H/D pair where
1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H that this simulated D(D)
cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

>
Nope.
>

 *This only requires knowing two things*
(1) What an execution trace is and how it works.
You seem to know that other people here do not.

Proven otherwise and ignored by you, proving you are just a pathological liar.

 (2) When the executed H(D,D) aborts its simulated input
that all of the nested simulations (if any) immediately
totally stop running. No simulated H ever returns any value
to any simulated D.
 *This seems to be over your head and you don't know it*

Nope, it stops the SIMULATION of all the programs nested in it, but does not stop the BEHAVIOR of those programs, as that is defined by the direct execution of it.
This seems over YOUR head.

 

>
(b) Rebuttals must show a counter example where 1 to N steps
of D(D) are simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past
its own line 03.

>
WAS DONE.
>

>
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
*Fully operational code implemented in the x86utm operating system*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>
>
>

>
Proven wrong, and you have declined to try to refute that proof.
>
If you claim I haven't done this, make a clear statement of that claim, with a clear statement that if I can point out where I did this, and you failed to respond, you will admit that you are just wrong and will admit that you logic is just broken and will give up the statement that people haven't refuted you.
>
Unitl then, you have effectively conceded that you statement is just FALSE, and your repeating it is just demonstration that are just a pathological liar that doesn't understand what he is talking abour.