Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 09:04:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/8/2024 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-07 18:41:47 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the
directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above
definition of correct simulation.

And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,

typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
 
void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
{
   P(I); return;
}

This is not a simulator.

void DDD(int (*x)())
{
   HHH(x, x); return;
}

This is not a decider.

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD,DDD);
}
 
In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return statement
thus never halt.

Thus are not deciders.

When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that DDD correctly
simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return statement, AKA
    simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD until
    HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never stop
    running unless aborted

And aborts it, making it behave differently - namely, terminating.

--
joes