Re: Is Richard a Liar?

On 5/18/24 11:27 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/18/2024 3:55 AM, immibis wrote:

On 16/05/24 17:17, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2024 4:27 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 20:10:10 +0000, olcott said:
>
No, but it would strongly support the idea that the errors in your
claims are not C programming errors. And even less that 10,000 would
be enough for that. Pernaps three.
>

>
Two people with a masters degrees in computer science and two
other people in C forums agreed that D simulated by H cannot
possibly reach its own line 06 and halt.
>

>
what about D not-simulated by H?

 What about the price of tea in China?
 Please stay on topic I wasted 15 years with
Ben's change-the-subject rebuttal.
 We can get to D not-simulated by H only after
we have mutual agreement of D simulated by H.
 My use of the Socratic method requires building
from and maintaining mutual agreement.
 

H is a not-simulator so that is the question you should be asking.

 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.
 The key thing to note is that no D correctly simulated by any H of every
H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own line 06
and halts.
  

Except that statement has been disproven for over two weeks, because an H defined as:
int H(ptr x, ptr y) {
   static int flag = 0;
   if (flag) return 0;
   flag = 1;
/* Then your normal code for H, with the skipping of the simulation of H removed so it actually does simulate D's call into H */
}
will correct simulate D to line 6.
Thus, you are proven to be an ignorate pathological liar that doesn't actually care about the truth, and in fact bases his logic of disproven assumptions.