Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?

On 5/24/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/24/2024 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-23 17:04:49 +0000, olcott said:
>

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int D(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
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       }
>
The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D pair
was being referred to.
>
*Correct Simulation Defined*
    This is provided because every reviewer had a different notion of
    correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>
    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); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, 02, and 03
    of D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless
    recursive simulation.

>
One can see that D is never stuch in recursive simulation unless H is.

 Counter-factual, please try again.

No, it is a PROVEN fact, as oposed your your unsound logic that tries to disprove it.
How can D(D) be stuck in "Recursive Simulation" unless the H(D,D) it calls is.
Since you admit and require that H be a "pure funciton" ALL calls to H(D,D) will act the same, and thus if H(D,D) returns an answer, D(D) must get that exact same answer from the H that it calls.
The fact that H can not simulate its input to that point is meaningless, and you true to use your lies to present the logic that you find convincing but we see the lies in it.

 

Whether H is cannot be seen has the details of H are not shown. Even
if they were H must, in order to simulate any x86 execution, be so
big and complicated that essential aspect may be hard to see; depending,
of course, on how the code is organized.
>

 We simply assume that H is the C equivalent of a UTM that
stops simulating at some point and returns the meaningless 56.