Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts

On 5/16/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/24 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:

The following is self-evidently true on the basis of the
semantics of the C programming language.

>
Which proves that you don't understand that C programming language, or how logic work.
>

>
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
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 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12   return 0;
13 }
>
In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>
This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H
in the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling
H(D,D) in recursive simulation.
>
Any H/D pair matching the above template where
D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls
cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt.
>
*This is a simple software engineering verified fact*
>

>
No, THAT IS A OLCOTT LIE.
>
I proved it wrong in a post I made about two weeks ago, which you read, simce you replied to it, but didn't even attempt to refute the arguement I made.

 *Provide the message ID or YOUR ARE A LIAR*
*Provide the message ID or YOUR ARE A LIAR*
*Provide the message ID or YOUR ARE A LIAR*
*Provide the message ID or YOUR ARE A LIAR*
 

No, Make the commitment that if I show YOU have been the liar that you will give up the right to make similar statements that could be the same sort of lie.
Never again can you claim that no one has refuted what you said, because it is clear you are just too likely to have "overlooked" a rebutal.
You have the ability to search.
If you want to claim that you have searched to the best of your ability and can't find it, and thus we can point out your weak searching ability when you want to claim something obviously true, you can do that to.
I suppose that since the statement shows that your "verified facts" statement to be just a lie, I guess when I point out the message-id that means I can point out that your concept of "verified facts" means things not actually verified, so that claim from you is possible a lie.