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

On 5/18/24 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/18/2024 8:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 17:46:29 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/17/2024 11:00 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-17 15:30:01 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/17/2024 2:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.mei.2024 om 03:15 schreef olcott:

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

>
Note that olcott defines 'verified fact' as 'proven fact', but he is unable to show the proof. So, it must be read as 'my belief'.

>
It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
of the semantics of the C programming language.

>
No, it isn't, because the C code of H is not shown.

>
*I DON'T KNOW WHY I MUST REPEAT THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES*
The C code that <is> shown provides the template for the
infinite set of every D correctly simulated by H.

>
You need to repeat this because what you said is defective,

 *Try and show exactly how the following is defective*
*Try and show exactly how the following is defective*
*Try and show exactly how the following is defective*
 

so it cannot be understood as you want and you don't know how
you could fix it so that you could say what you want to say.
>

 typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
00 int H(ptr x, ptr y);
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.
 Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(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.
 The key thing to note is that no D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.
 

PROVEN WRONG and that you are just a LIAR.
let H begin:
int H(ptr x, ptr y) {
    static int flag = 0;
    if (flag) return 0;
    flag = 1;
/* Then you normal H with the skipping of the simualtion of H disabled */
}
Will be able to correct simulate D to the end at line 6.
Thus, you are proven to not have sufficient knowledge of the semantic properties of C, and to just be an ignorant pathological liar.